G.Saminathan v. The Director General Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.03.2017

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH W.P.(MD) No.4272 of 2017 G.Saminathan ... Petitioner -vs1.The Director General of Police, Chennai.

2.The Inspector General of Police, Trichy Zonal, Trichy.

3.Rajendran, The Inspector of Police, South Police Station, Thanjavur.

... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 28.02.2017 and to take necessary action as against the 3rd respondent.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Balasubramani For Respondents : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen, Addl. Govt. Pleader *****

O R D E R

This petition has been filed for a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 28.02.2017 and to take necessary action as against the 3rd respondent.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a Power Agent of one Sathiyamoorthy, who was the owner of certain property in Adhanakottai Village. As the Power Agent of the said Sathiyamoorthy, the petitioner executed a sale deed dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

23.06.2016 in favour of one C.Paunpappa, the mother in law of the 3rd respondent and that he has to still receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.7,33,000/-. While so, it is alleged by the petitioner that the 3rd respondent, being Inspector of Police, had threatened the petitioner on 27.02.2017.

4. On the face of it, the allegation made by the petitioner does not inspire the confidence of this Court, inasmuch as even according to the petitioner, he had executed a sale deed as Power Agent on 23.06.2016 and strangely, he has taken a stand that he has not received the sale consideration of Rs.7,33,000/-. Assuming for the moment that he had not received Rs.7,33,000/- it is open to him to file civil suit for recovery of the money. That apart, this Court cannot give a direction as prayed for by the petitioner, because the petitioner had civil transaction with the family members of the 3rd respondent and if he has got any grievance against the 3rd respondent, it is open to the petitioner to file a suit and recover his money. Therefore, this petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-II) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To:

1.The Director General of Police, Chennai.

2.The Inspector General of Police, Trichy Zonal, Trichy.

Thanjavur.

+1 cc to Special Government Pleader, in SR.No. 14734 +1 cc to Mr.K.Balasubramani , Advocate in SR.No. 14530 ar AE/SKN/RSK/27.03.2017/2P/5C W.P.(MD) No.4272 of 2017 14.03.2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/