Madras High CourtWP(MD)/22103/2015dismissed

T.Sunitha, W/O.R.Rajan v. The Secy To Government

2015-12-10Honourable Mr Justice K. Ravichandrabaabu3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:10.12.2015

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU W.P.(MD)No.22103 of 2015 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2015 T.Sunitha ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The secretary to Government, Home Department, St. Fort George, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.

2. The District Collector, Kanyakumari.

3. The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari.

4. The Inspector of Police, Kanyakumari Police Station, Kanyakumari District.

5. The Inspector of Police, South Thamaraikulam Police Station, Kanyakumari District.

6. Mr.Samson, Inspector of Police, Special Team, O.o.Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil.

7. Mr.Suresh, Special Sub-Inspector of Police, S.B.C.I.D. Special Team, O/o.Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil.

8. Vijayan, Sub-Inspector of Police, S.B.C.I.D. Special Team, O/o.Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil.

9. Mohankumar, Head Constable, S.B.C.I.D. Special Team, O/o.Superinteintendent of Police, Nagercoil.

10. Natarajan, Head Constable, S.B.C.I.D. Special Team, O/o.Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil.

... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the second respondent from invoking Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act, 1982 against the petitioner's husband on the recommendation made by the fifth respondent.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Anandakumar for M/s.K.Seemaraj For R-1 to R-5 : Mr.D.Muruganantham, Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

The petitioner is seeking for a Mandamus forbearing the second respondent from invoking Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982(Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), against the petitioner's husband on the recommendation made by the fifth respondent.

2. In effect, the petitioner is seeking a relief against the official respondents preventing them from discharging their official duty. I do not think that the said prayer can be maintained and entertained by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as it is for the petitioner to challenge the order of detention if any passed by the second respondent in future, as apprehended by the petitioner, in the manner known to law. Therefore, there is no

question of issuing a preventive order as sought for in this Writ Petition.

3. Accordingly, I find that the Writ Petition is not maintainable and consequently, the same is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To