← Library
Madras High CourtWP(MD)/7407/2025closed

Mahalakshmi v. The Superintendent Of Police

2025-03-19Honourable Mr. Justice P.Dhanabal5 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.03.2025 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL Mahalakshmi ... Petitioner Vs

1. The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

2. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Sattur, Virudhunagar District.

3. The Inspector of Police, Sattur Taluk Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents 1 to 3 to consider the petitioner's representations, dated 22.02.2025 and 26.02.2025.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Mariappan For Respondents : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor 1/5

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the Respondents 1 to 3 to consider the petitioner's representations, dated 22.02.2025 and 26.02.2025.

2.According to the petitioner, she is running a hotel in the name of Arya Hotel at Pethureddiyapatti Village and she had entered into a lease agreement with one Kavitha. Thereafter, there was some misunderstanding between them. The said Kavitha has filed a suit in OS No.58 of 2013 on the file of Sub Court, Sattur for recovery of possession and the same was decreed ex-parte. Thereafter, the said Kavitha filed an execution petition in E.P.No.42 of 2020 and the same was also ordered ex-parte. In the meantime, the petitioner filed petitions to set aside the ex-parte decree and the ex-parte order passed in the execution petition and the same were dismissed, against which, the petitioner has preferred revision before this Court in C.R.P(MD) Nos. 994 and 995 of 2024 and the same were allowed on 02.12.2024 and remanded back to the trial Court for fresh consideration. While so, the said Kavitha along with others damaged the utensils of the petitioner and demolished the 2/5

construction, thereby, the petitioner has sent a representation dated 22.02.2025 to the third respondent, but no action has been taken. Therefore, she again sent a representation on 26.02.2025, but no action has been taken. Hence this petition has been filed. 3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 would submit that the representations of the petitioner were already considered and since there is a civil dispute between the petitioner and the lessee and the other side has got decree in her favour, the representations of the petitioner were closed after enquiry. Therefore, nothing survives for further adjudication. 4.Since the prayer of the petitioner is to consider the representations of the petitioner and the same was already considered and closed by the respondents, it is for the petitioner to challenge the closure report in the manner known to law, if she is aggrieved so. 3/5

5.Accordingly, this writ petition is closed preserving the liberty of the petitioner to challenge the closure report in the manner known to law.

19.03.2025 Internet :Yes Index :Yes/No NCC :Yes/No PNM To

1. The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

2. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Sattur, Virudhunagar District.

3. The Inspector of Police, Sattur Taluk Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

4/5

P.DHANABAL , J.

PNM ORDER IN 19.03.2025 5/5