Madras High CourtWP(MD)/7880/2020dismissed

T.K.Krishnasamy v. The Inspector General Of Police

2022-03-04Honourable Mr Justice N. Sathish Kumar3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:04.03.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR T.K.Krishnasamy ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai.

2.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vedachandur Sub-Division, Vedachandur, Dindigul District.

4.Mr.Ilavarassu, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vedachandur Sub-Division, Vedachandur, Dindigul District.

5.The Inspector of Police, Vedachandur Police Station, Vedachandur, Dindigul District.

6.Mrs.Kavitha, Inspector of Police, Vedachandur Police Station, Vedachandur, Dindigul District.

7.The Inspector of Police, Dindigul West Police Station, Dindigul District.

8.P.Natarajan 9.P.Bharathi .... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate action against the 1/3

respondents 4 and 6 by considering the petitioner's representation dated 09.07.2020 within a time frame and direct the respondents 1 to 6 to return the bus bearing Registration No.TN-57-R-1679 to the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Subramanian For R-1 to R-3, R-5 & R-7 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar, Government Advocate For R-8 & R-9 : MR.S.R.SURESH KUMAR, for MR.K.ANANDAN, for Respondents 8 & 9

ORDER

The writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2, to take appropriate action against the respondents 4 and 6, by considering the petitioner's representation dated 09.07.2020 within a time frame and to direct the respondents 1 to 6, to return the bus bearing Registration No.TN-57-R-1679, to the petitioner. 2.The crux of the allegation in the writ petition itself indicates that the petitioner's grievance is that the bus has been purchased under hire purchase contract between himself and respondents 8 and 9. It is the contention of the petitioner that the police has helped the respondents 8 and 9 in seizing the vehicle. Therefore, action sought to be taken against the respondents 8 and 9.

3. The writ petitioner has already filed a writ petition in W.P(MD)No.6658 of 2020 wherein this Court directed the District Collector to enquire the matter and complete the process. The District Collector has also passed an order after detailed enquiry in favour of the respondents 8 and 9.

4. As the entire grievance appears to be with regard to seizing of vehicle, by merely making the officials as parties, the petitioner cannot vindicate his right in a writ petition. The allegation put forth by the petitioner required proof. It is a matter of evidence. The same cannot be decided in this writ petition. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS I) /TRUE COPY/ / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) pm 2/3

To:

1.The Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai.

2.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vedachandur Sub-Division, Vedachandur, Dindigul District.

4.The Inspector of Police, Vedachandur Police Station, Vedachandur, Dindigul District.

5.The Inspector of Police, Dindigul West Police Station, Dindigul District.

6 The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai +1 CC to M/s.R.SUBRAMANIAN, Advocate ( SR-10244[F] dated 07/03/2022 ) 04.03.2022 MK/22.03.2022/3P/8C 3/3