Manojkumar v. The District Collector

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 21.11.2024

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN Manojkumar ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Collector, Office of District Collector, Salem - 636 001.

2.The Commissioner of Police, Office of Commissioner of Police, Salem.

3. The Inspector of Police, Kolanlampatti, Salem.

4.Raja 5.Chandhiran 6.Natarajan 7.Selvam 8.Vel ... Respondents [Respondents 4 to 8 are impleaded as per order of this Court dated 18.10.2024 in W.M.P.No.27899 of 2024 in W.P.No.21724 of 2024] 1/5

Prayer:

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the representation based on the representation made by the petitioner seeking police protection to the petitioner and his family. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Shanmugam For Respondent : Mr.S.Sugendran Additional Public Prosecutor for R2 and R3 No appearance for R4 to R8

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 10.07.2024, to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner and his family.

2. According to the petitioner, he is running a business in the name and style of ''Manoj Pulverizer and Minerals Enterprises''. He has applied for a certificate from MSME to run a stone mill at No.7/81-1, Sittaneri Poolavari Agaraharam, Salem, and that he has obtained necessary 2/5

permissions from various departments and has also paid taxes for every interval without any default. While that being so, the neighbourhood in the said locality causes an interruption to run a business, hence the petitioner has made a representation on 10.07.2024 to respondents 1 to 3 seeking to provide police protection to the petitioner and his family. Since there was no response from them, the present petition is filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents 2 and 3 and perused the materials available on record.

4. It is seen from the records that as the dispute alleged by the petitioner is purely civil in nature, therefore, this Court is not inclined to give any positive direction to respondents 1 to 3 to provide Police protection to the petitioner and his family, as it is for the petitioner to workout his remedy before the competent Civil Court in the manner known to law.

5. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall 3/5

be no order as to costs.

21.11.2024 Index: Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No ms To 1.The District Collector, Office of District Collector, Salem - 636 001.

2.The Commissioner of Police, Office of Commissioner of Police, Salem.

3. The Inspector of Police, Kolanlampatti, Salem.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

4/5

P.VELMURUGAN, J ms 21.11.2024 5/5