Balusamy v. The Inspector General Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:11.07.2022 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM Balusamy ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Inspector General of Police, Trichy Region, Trichy.

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

3.The Inspector of Police, Paramathi Police Station, Karur District.

4.Nizhamutheen ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to give adequate police protection to the petitioner and his family members life and limb based upon the petitioners representation dated 28.06.2022.

1/5

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Gokul Raj For R-1, R-2 and R-3 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar, Government Advocate, (Criminal Side).

O R D E R

This writ petitioner filed this Writ Petition seeking for issuance of a Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to give adequate police protection to the petitioner and his family members life and limb based upon the petitioners representation dated 28.06.2022.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner runs the quarry business in the name and style of ''M/s.A1 Blue Metals'' at Karvali Village, Pugalur Taluk, Karur District. Due to some medical ailments, he was unable to run the quarry and he could not renew the license. Under such circumstances, the fourth respondent approached the petitioner to run the quarry and insist the petitioner to get license extension. After completing all the procedures, the petitioner handed over the business to the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent dismantled all the equipments and machineries installed in 2/5

the quarry and also demanded a sum of rupees one Crore from the petitioner. Thus, a dispute arose between the petitioner and the fourth respondent. In this regard, the petitioner preferred a representation dated 28.06.2022 to the respondent Police seeking for Police protection. Since, no action was taken, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

3. The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that already petition has been received and there is a dispute between the petitioner and the fourth respondent with regard to running of a quarry business. On enquiry, it was found that there was a lease between the petitioner and the fourth respondent for five years. Now, only one year alone completed. Therefore, the dispute between the petitioner and the fourth respondent is purely of civil nature with regard to lease period in the quarry business. Hence, the respondent Police closed the enquiry and the petition.

4. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (criminal side) appearing for the respondent police. 3/5

5. On perusal of the records, it is seen that there is a dispute between the petitioner and the fourth respondent with regard to running a quarry in lease and being a civil dispute, the Police protection cannot be provided in this regard.

6. Hence, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

11.07.2022 Index :Yes/No Internet : Yes/ No Nsr To 1.The Inspector General of Police, Trichy Region, Trichy.

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

3.The Inspector of Police, Paramathi Police Station, Karur District.

4/5

V.SIVAGNANAM, J Nsr 11.07.2022 5/5