← Library
Madras High CourtWP Crl./943/2025dismissed

Ghayazullah v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Its, The Principal Secretary,

2025-09-25Honourable Mr Justice N. Sathish Kumar5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 25-09-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR Ghayazullah Appellant(s) Vs

1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep By its, The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Police, Vepery, Chennai-7.

3.The Deputy Commissioner of Police, St.Thamas Mount District, Chennai-16.

4.The Inspector of Police, S1, St.Thamas Mount Police Station, 5.Jawahar Ali Treasurer, Jumma Masjid, Butt Road, St.Thomas Mount,

6.Mohamed Shakir Vice President, Jumma Masjid, Butt Road, St.Thomas Mount, 7.Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, Rep.by its Secretary, Chennai.

Respondent(s) PRAYER To direct the 4th respondent to provide adequate and effective police protection to the petitioner and his family members to enable them to peacefully enter, secure, and put up boundary walls and fencing in the property comprised in Door Nos.5/64, 5/64-A, 5/64B, 5/64-6A and 5/64-6C, Survey Nos.1826 Magazine Road, Butt Road, St.Thomas Mount, Chennai-600 016, without any interference from respondents 5 and 6 or their men, agents or associates, based on the petitioner's representation dated 16.06.2023. For Appellant(s):

Mr.S.Yogalakshmi For Respondent:

Mr.R.Vinothraja, Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) for RR1 to 4

ORDER

The petitioner seeks police protection to the petitioner and his family members to enable them to enjoy his property.

2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner's mother has already filed OS.No.41 of 2001 and obtained decree. The suit has been decreed for permanent injunction. However, the private respondents are interfering with his possession. Despite his complaint, the respondent Police has not given protection.

3. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, at the outset, such a blanket direction cannot be given. Since the petitioner has got permanent injunction decree in OS.No.41 of 2001, if there is any violation, he can very well file Execution Petition. Since there is no limitation to enforce the decree of permanent injunction, the petitioner's remedy lies before the Civil Court by executing the decree. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. 25-09-2025 pvs Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes

To

1. The Principal Secretary, The State of Tamilnadu Home Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Police, Vepery, Chennai-7.

3.The Deputy Commissioner of Police, St.Thamas Mount District, Chennai-16.

4.The Inspector of Police, S1, St.Thamas Mount Police Station,

5. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, Chennai.

N.SATHISH KUMAR J.

pvs 25-09-2025