D.Devasakayam v. The Union Of India

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 29.04.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN D.Devasakayam ...

Petitioner Vs 1 The Union of India, Represented by its Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, No.113, North Block, New Delhi - 110 011.

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

...

Respondents (Respondent No.2 is suo motu impleaded vide order of Court, dated 29.04.2025) PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent to dispose the petitioner's representation, dated 20.03.2025, in a manner known to law.

For Petitioner :

Mr.S.I.Muthiah For Respondent 1 : Mr.A.Balaji, Standing Counsel.

For Respondent 2 : Mr.M.Karunanithi, Govt. Advocate.

ORDER

The petitioner seeks for the following relief : ''Writ of mandamus, directing the respondent to dispose the petitioner's representation, dated 20.03.2025, in a manner known to law.''

2. The case of the petitioner is that he has initiated several proceedings, bringing to the notice of the court the serious frauds that had been committed by the erstwhile office-bearers of Church of South India Trust Association, and those belonging to Madurai-Ramnad Diocese. He had also pointed out the fraud that had been committed by the then Secretary of Madurai-Ramnad Diocese and included private persons, who had benefited on account of the alleged illegal activities of the office-bearers. He points out that he had made out such a strong case that a Central Bureau of Investigation enquiry had been ordered by this Court. On account of his pro-active activities, as a member of the Christian Reformation People's Association, the petitioner faced threat from several quarters. Hence, he sought for protection

to his life and liberty, by making a representation on 20.03.2025 to the first respondent. As the same had not been positively considered, he has come forward with the present Writ Petition.

3. I have heard Mr.S.I.Muthiah, for the petitioner; Mr.A.Balaji for the first respondent; and Mr.M.Karunanithi, for the second respondent; and also gone through the records.

4. By the very nature of things, law and order falls within the jurisdiction of the State. Union of India does not have a role to play in the law and order situation of a State. The Union forces are not meant for protection of an individual, unless and until the threat perception is so high that the Central Government decides to afford security to the person concerned. Since the matter relates to threat perception, I called upon the second respondent to find out whether the petitioner, in fact, suffers from threat perception, which requires police protection. The second respondent has instructed Mr.Karunanithi, to state that the intelligence reports do not indicate such a perception for the petitioner's life and property.

5. When these issues are pointed out, Mr.Muthiah pleads that the petitioner is willing to pay for escort services, that are provided by the State Government.

6. In the light of the above discussion, the second respondent, if approached by the petitioner, shall provide him with, with a police official for escort duty, on payment of charges in advance by the petitioner. The relief, in so far as the Union of India is concerned, stands rejected.

7. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. 29.04.2025 NCC :

Yes / No (2/2) Index :

Yes / No Internet :

Yes / No dixit To:

1 The Union of India, Represented by its Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, No.113, North Block, New Delhi - 110 011.

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

V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

dixit (2/2) 29.04.2025