M.Devendran v. The Superintendent Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.09.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR M.Devendran ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Superintendent of Police, Mayiladuthurai District, Mayiladuthurai.
2.The Inspector of Police, Sirkazhi Police Station, Sirkazhi, Mayiladuthurai District.
... Respondents Prayer:-Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated 11.04.2024 sent for providing protection for the petitioner's business premises 'M/s.Abi Construction' Tar Plant situate at S.F.No.267/2A and 469/1C2A, Edamanal Village, Sirkazhi Taluk, Mayiladuthurai District, in accordance with law and within a stipulated period.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sriram For Respondents : Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side) 1/6
ORDER
This writ petition is filed to direct the respondents to provide police protection to the petitioner's business premises by considering the petitioner's representation dated 11.04.2024. 2.The petitioner is running a Tar plant for supplying Tar for roads in Edamanal Village, Sirkazhi Taluk, Mayiladuthurai District. The authorities belonging to Revenue Department, Directorate of Town and Country Planning, Forest Department, Agriculture Department have issued necessary certificate to that effect. the petitioner paid necessary charges for obtaining consent from Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. The petitioner is running a business in the name and style of M/s.Abi Constructions. The petitioner before starting his business conducted a survey, enquired with the Villagers and only after the Villagers expressing 'No objection', Tar plant was installed. The Anti Social and Politically connected persons who had an eye in the petitioner's business started creating disturbance and also interfering with the petitioner's business. The petitioner also enquired with 2/6
the local Villagers and from the nearby Villages, who have stated that they have not participated in any protest or road roco. The petitioner finding that some anti social elements with ulterior motive creating disturbance to his business, sent a representation to the respondents on 11.04.2024. But so far, the respondents had not taken any action. Hence, the above petition. 3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submits that on the complaint of one Srinivasan, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Sirkazhi Police Station registered a case against ten person on 18.03.2024 for the unauthorized road roco conducted by some persons claiming themselves belonged to a political party. He would submit that steps were taken and soon final report to be filed in this case.
He further submitted that as regards the unknown persons, it is for the petitioner to give details, as and when such details are provided, appropriate action would be taken. He would further submit that the respondent police can provide police protection if specific complaint is made and not on a bald allegation. 4.
on 11.04.2024 within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order with intimation to the petitioner. 5.Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. 18.09.2024 Index: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order cse 4/6
To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Mayiladuthurai District, Mayiladuthurai.
2.The Inspector of Police, Sirkazhi Police Station, Sirkazhi, Mayiladuthurai District.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai 5/6
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
cse 18.09.2024 6/6