← Library
Madras High CourtWP/43327/2016dismissed

M.Natarajan v. The District Collector

2017-11-09Honourable Mr Justice M.Duraiswamy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 09.11.2017

CORAM

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY W.P.No.43327 of 2016 M.Natarajan ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The District Collector, O/o Thiruvannamalai District Collector, Thiruvannamalai District.

2. The Superintendent of Police, O/o The Superintendent of Police, Thiruvannamalai.

3. State rep by The Inspector of Police, Chepet Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District.

4.K.Chinnadurai 5.K.Barani 6.C.Ravi ... Respondents (R3 to R6 impleaded vide order dated 25.04.2017 made in W.M.P.No.9708 of 2017 in W.P.No.43327 of 2016) Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 31.10.2016 and consequently issue suitable directions for police protection for petitioner and his family members at Narasingapuram, Madhura Kuppam, Chetput Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District.

Petitioner : Mr.M.Natarajan, Party-in-person For Respondents: Mr.A.N.Thambidurai, Special Government Pleader (R1 to R3) R4 to R6 - appeared in person

O R D E R

The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to dispose of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

petitioner's representation dated 31.10.2016 and consequently to issue suitable directions for police protection for the petitioner and his family members at Narasingapuram, Madhura Kuppam, Chetput Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District. 2.The petitioner, who is appearing in person, submitted that he has given a representation dated 31.10.2016 for giving police protection for himself and for his family members. However, the respondents 1 & 2 have not considered the same yet. 3.Admittedly, the petitioner is a resident of Chennai and his agricultural lands situate at Madhura Kuppam, Narasingapuram, Thiruvannamalai District.

Further, the petitioner submitted that though his prayer was seeking for police protection in the Writ Petition, actually direction should be given to the police for taking action on the complaint given by him against the adjoining land owners. Further, the petitioner has stated that he has wrongly prayed for police protection in this Writ Petition.

4.Since the submission made by the petitioner is beyond the scope of the Writ Petition, I do not find any reason to entertain the present Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

s/d- Assistant Registrar(CS-V) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar va To 1.The District Collector, O/o Thiruvannamalai District Collector, Thiruvannamalai District.

2.The Superintendent of Police, O/o The Superintendent of Police, Thiruvannamalai.

3.The Inspector of Police, Chepet Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District.

+2 Ccs to Mr.M. Natarajan, advocate sr 79409. W.P.No.43327 of 2016 SP(16/11/2017) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/