Mohammed Aliayar v. The Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 18.03.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI W.P.Crl(MD)No.1526 of 2026 Mohammed Aliayar ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police, O/o. The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, O/o., the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District. 624 101 3.The Inspector of Police, Kodaikanal Police Station, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District.

4.Usman 5.Sakila 6.Akim Mulla 7.Fathima ... Respondents PRAYER :-Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to conclude an enquiry and take appropriate action against the respondents 1/6

4 to 7 based on the petitioner's representation dated 16.02.2026 within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner : Ms.M.Rashidha For R1 to R3 : Mr.M.Sakthikumar Government Advocate (Crl.side)

ORDER

Seeking to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to conclude an enquiry and take appropriate action against the respondents 4 to 7 based on the petitioner's representation dated 16.02.2026, this writ petition is filed. 2.Since no adverse order is going to be passed against the respondents 4 to 7, notice to them is dispensed with. 3.It is the case of the petitioner that despite the pendency of the civil suit in respect of the subject property, the respondents 4 to 7 are indulging in illegal activities including death threats and using obscene language against his daughter. The petitioner has sent a representation to the respondents 1 to 3 seeking to conduct enquiry in this regard and take necessary action against the private respondents herein. However, the 2/6

said representation has not been considered and has been kept in abeyance. Hence, this writ petition.

4. The learned Government Advocate (crl.side) submitted that the petitioner's representation would be considered within a time to be fixed by this Court.

5. Heard the learned counsels on either side and carefully perused the materials available on record.

6. It is needless to point out that whenever a representation of this nature is made to a Statutory Authority, there is a duty cast upon the respondent to consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in one way or other instead of keeping the same pending indefinitely. As such, non-consideration of the representation made by the Statutory Authority would amount to dereliction of duty and hence, this Court will be justified in invoking the extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3/6

7. It is made clear that without going into the merits of this case, the respondents 1 and 3 are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 16.02.2026, after issuing summon under Section 64 of BNSS to the petitioner as well as the respondents 4 to 7 and pass appropriate orders within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

8. With the above directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. 18.03.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Rmk To 1.The Superintendent of Police, O/o. The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, O/o., the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District. 624 101 3.The Inspector of Police, Kodaikanal Police Station, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District.

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

4/6

5/6

L.VICTORIA GOWRI,J Rmk W.P.Crl(MD)No.1526 of 2026 18.03.2026 6/6