Theerthagiri v. The Tamilnadu State Human Rights Commission

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 08.09.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR & W.M.P.No.9 of 2021 Thiru.Theerthagiri Sub Inspector of Police Valasaravaakam Police Station Chennai Now he presently working as Sub Inspector of Police West Zone Greater Chennai ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Tamilnadu State Human Rights Commission Represented by its Registrar 143, P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai Greenways Road Adayar, Chennai - 600 028

2. The Government of Tamilnadu Rep. by its Joint Secretary to Government Home (POL - IVA) Department Secretariat Chennai - 600 009 Page Nos.1/6

3. The Director General of Police Office of the Director General of Police Chennai - 04

4. The Principal Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat, Chennai - 09

5. The Special Secretary to Government Public (HR) Department Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009

6. Thiru.N.Boobalan S/o.Narasimmalu ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the impugned order of the State Human Rights Commission/1st Respondent in its proceedings S.H.R.C.No.8582 of 2018 dated 19.11.2020 and quash the same.

For Petitioner :

Ms.L.Meenakshi for Mr.M.Dinesh For Respondents :

Ms.P.Prema for R1 (SHRC) Mr.P.Balathandayutham Special Govt. Pleader for R2 to R5 Mr.R.Sreerangan for R6 Page Nos.2/6

ORDER

[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.] A complaint dated 05.09.2020 given by sixth respondent (Thiru.N.Boobalan, son of Thiru.Narasimmalu) before us in 'State Human Rights Commission' ['SHRC' for the sake of brevity] complaining of violation of human rights culminated in a 'recommendation dated 19.11.2020 in S.H.R.C Case No.8582 of 2018' [hereinafter 'impugned order' for the sake of convenience] wherein and whereby compensation of Rs.50,000/- to sixth respondent was ordered with a further observation that the same can be recovered from second respondent before SHRC (to be noted, second respondent before SHRC is the sole writ petitioner before us).

2. Mr.R.Sreerangan, learned counsel for sixth respondent submits, on instructions, that sixth respondent is now not pressing the aforesaid 05.09.2020 complaint before SHRC as the matter has been given a quietus as between sixth respondent and writ petitioner. Saying so, learned counsel has made an endorsement in the case file and a scanned reproduction of the same is as follows:

Page Nos.3/6

3. In the light of the narrative thus far, we deem it appropriate to say that the impugned order of SHRC stands effaced in its entirety, obviously without expression of any view on merits one way or the other. Captioned WP has served its purpose and WMP thereat has become infructuous and the same are disposed of as closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

(M.S.,J.) (M.S.K.,J.) 08.09.2025 Index : Yes / No gpa Page Nos.4/6

To

1. The District Collector Chennai District Collectorate Singaravelar Malligai, Chennai

2. The Tahsildar Ambattur Taluk, Ambattur, Chennai

3. The Executive Engineer Zone VII, Greater Chennai Corporation Chennai - 600 053 Page Nos.5/6

M.SUNDAR, J., and MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J., gpa 08.09.2025 Page Nos.6/6