P. Radhakrishnan v. The District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 02.06.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI & W.M.P.Crl.(MD)No.151 of 2025 P.Radhakrishnan ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The District Collector, Sivagangai District.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District.

3. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Sivagangai Sub Division, Sivagangai District.

4. The Inspector of Police, Salaigramam Police Station, Sivagangai District.

... Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to provide police protection to the life and limb of the petitioner in the light of the recommendation in N.Ref.Nos.242/SP.P/SDO/SVG/2025 and Nil/SP.P/SDO/SVG/2025 by the 4th respondent herein within a stipulated period that may be fixed by this Court.

1/6

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Pon Ramkumar For Respondents : Mr.K.Saravanan (R1) Government Advocate Mr.S.Arun Arockiasamy (R2 to R4) Counsel for State of TN (Crl.side)

ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the respondents herein to provide police protection to the life and limb of the petitioner in the light of the recommendation made in N.Ref.Nos.242/SP.P/SDO/SVG/2025 and Nil/SP.P/SDO/SVG/2025 by the 4th respondent herein within a stipulated period that may be fixed by this Court.

2. The petitioner, a social worker and environmental activist, has submitted that since 2019, he has filed multiple public interest litigations concerning illegal mining in areas such as Ilayankudi, Salaigramam, Kalaiyarkovil, Nayinarkovil, R.S. Mangalam, Paramakudi, and Sivagangai. His efforts also address encroachments, the removal of Tasmac shops, and other public interest issues. Due to these activities, he has faced threats from various antisocial elements. Consequently, he requested police protection from the responding authorities, but his request has not been addressed. This has led him to file the present writ petition.

2/6

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the information obtained under the Right to Information Act from the 4th respondent, which indicates that the Superintendent of Police has recommended that the 4th respondent provide necessary police protection to the petitioner, considering the various threats he is facing.

4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents submitted that as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the 4th respondent has already considered the petitioner's representation and had forwarded a report for appropriate action before the second respondent and the same is pending for consideration. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent police pointed out that the fourth respondent is affording necessary police protection to the petitioner.

5. Heard the learned counsel on either sides and carefully perused the materials placed before this Court.

6. In view of the submission made by the either parties, the second respondent is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for affording proper 3/6

police protection if he is otherwise eligible. The learned Government Advocate also emphasized that the 4th respondent is providing the necessary police protection to the petitioner by visiting his residence twice daily, in the morning and evening.

7. With the above directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 02.06.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No sm 4/6

TO:-

1. The District Collector, Sivagangai District.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District.

3. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Sivagangai Sub Division, Sivagangai District.

4. The Inspector of Police, Salaigramam Police Station, Sivagangai District.

5. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

Sm Order made in Dated 02.06.2026 6/6