Madras High CourtWP(MD)/19003/2018disposed of

M.Kaliraj, v. The Superintendent Of Police

2018-08-31Honourable Mr Justice N. Anand Venkatesh2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 31.08.2018

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH WP(MD)No.19003 of 2018 and WMP(MD)No.16840 of 2018 M.Kaliraj

...Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police, Intellectual Property Enforcement Cell, 3rd Floor, Old Commissioner Office, Egmore, Chennai.

2.The Inspector of Police, Intellectual Property Enforcement Cell, Tirunvelveli.

...Respondents

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus restraining the respondents herein from illegally interfering with the Cable TV business of the petitioner without due process of law. For Petitioner : Mrs.Porkodi Karnan For Respondents : Mr.S.Dhayalan, Government Advocate

ORDER

The writ petition has been filed for a direction to the respondent Police not to interfere with the Cable TV business conducted by the petitioner.

2.The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has obtained a valid licence from the Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV and is conducting the Cable TV business. The petitioner was made as an accused in Crime No.134 of 2018 and was arrested in the said case. The investigation is pending in this case. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner will cooperate for the said investigation. 3.The learned Counsel would further submit that the second respondent Police is regularly interfering with the conduct of the business of the petitioner, which has nothing to do with the FIR registered against the petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate would submit that the petitioner is called for enquiry with regard to the criminal case pending against him in Crime No.134 of 2018. The second respondent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Police does not have anything to do with the Cable TV business conducted by the petitioner and has never prevented the petitioner from doing his business.

5.In view of the above submission, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent Police not to interfere with the Cable TV business conducted by the petitioner. However, if the second respondent wants to enquire the petitioner with regard to the case in Crime No.134 of 2018, he is at liberty to do so, and the petitioner is directed to cooperate with the investigation. Consequently, WMP(MD)No.16840 of 2018 is closed. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-I) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-I) To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Intellectual Property Enforcement Cell, 3rd Floor, Old Commissioner Office, Egmore, Chennai.

2.The Inspector of Police, Intellectual Property Enforcement Cell, Tirunvelveli.

+1CC to M/s.POLAX LEGAL SOLUTION, Advocate, SR.No.81590 +1CC to the Special Government Pleader SR.No. 81760 WP(MD)No.19003 of 2018 and WMP(MD)No.16840 of 2018 31.08.2018 DSK ES/RP/SAR 1/17.09.2018/2P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/