Dora Christy .C v. The Superintendent Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03.06.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI C. Dora Christy, The President, Marthandam Bee Keepers Co-Operative Society Ltd, Vettuvenni Junction, Marthandam, Kanyakumari District.
... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari, At Nagercoil.
2.The Inspector of Police, Kuzhithurai Police Station, Kanyakumari District.
3.Y.Vedhasironmani
...Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first and second respondents to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner's Society so as to procure the honey from the members of the Society as scheduled without any hindrance from the third respondent 1/6
herein by considering the representation of the petitioner, dated 04.05.2024, within a time frame that may be fixed by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh For R1 & R2 : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor For R3 : Mr.S.Suresh Kumar.
O R D E R
The petitioner is the President of Marthandam Bee Keepers Co-Operative Society Ltd., Marthandam. The petitioner has approached this Court with a grievance that the third respondent has created nuisance and insisting the petitioner Society to procure Honey from him. 2.According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner Society is maintaining a standard and they are procuring honey only from the suppliers, who can supply the honey with 80% density and 20% of moisture as prescribed by Agmark. However, the third respondent and his followers have not followed the Agmark requirements and therefore, they have refused to receive honey from the third respondent. The third respondent is creating nuisance by gathering the Society 2/6
members and prevented them from procuring honey from other suppliers. Therefore, the petitioner Society has lodged a complaint before the respondent police and also sought for police protection. Since the respondent police has not taken any steps on the compliant of the petitioner, the petitioner Society has approached this Court, seeking for police protection to conduct the day today affairs of the Society in a peaceful manner.
3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 submits that the complaint has been forwarded through post and if the complaint has been placed with some reliable materials, they would take necessary action as against the persons, who are disturbing the affairs of the Society.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent submits that the third respondent is not creating any nuisance and he has not insisted the petitioner Society to procure the substandard honey. 3/6
5.Recording the submission of the learned counsel for the third respondent, this writ petition is closed with a direction to the third respondent not to disturb the petitioner Society in any way and the petitioner is at liberty to lodge a fresh compliant in person with all the relevant materials, if anybody has caused nuisance to the affairs of the Society. No costs.
03.06.2024 Index :Yes/No Internet : Yes/No vrn 4/6
To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari, At Nagercoil.
2.The Inspector of Police, Kuzhithurai Police Station, Kanyakumari District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.
Madurai.
5/6
B.PUGALENDHI,J.
vrn Order made in 03.06.2024 6/6