Madras High CourtWP(MD)/23295/2022disposed of

Jeyakumar.R v. The Inspector General Of Police,

2022-10-06Honourable Mrs Justice T.V.Thamilselvi6 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 06.10.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI R.Jeyakumar ... Petitioner versus

1. The Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai.

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

3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, O/o. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Melur, Madurai District.

4. The Inspector of Police, Melur Police Station, Madrai District.

5. Suresh 1/6

6. Ganesan

7. Alagar

8. Pitchairajan

9. Anish

10. Periampillai

11. Senthil @ Senthil Ezhuvan ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 4th respondent to conduct preliminary enquiry based on the petitioner's complaint dated 31.08.2022 and to take action against respondents 5 to 11.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Krishnasamy for M/s.P.Banuprasanth For R1 to R4 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For R5 : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan

ORDER

This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the 4th respondent to conduct preliminary enquiry based on the petitioner's complaint dated 31.08.2022 and take action against respondents 5 to 11. 2/6

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the land in Survey No. 570/1, 570/2 situated at Perumalpatti, Melur Taluk, is his ancestral property and he is in possession of the said land. According to him, in order to give electricity connection to one Pichairajan's land, a EB poll has been erected in his land, for which, he filed his objections before the Alagarkovil EB Office on 28.08.2022 and the respondents 5 to 11 also promised him that they will not disturb and encumber the said land. Despite the same, the respondents 5 to 11 cut the Ficus Tinctoria tree and erected EB poll by giving electricity connection. Therefore, he filed a complaint dated 31.08.2022 before the 4th respondent to take action against the respondents 5 to 11. However, there was no action on the said complaint. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it would be suffice for the petitioner, if a direction is issued to the fourth respondent to consider the petitioner's complaint dated 31.08.2022. 3/6

4. Considering the limited prayer sought for in the writ petition, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, directs the fourth respondent to consider the petitioner's complaint dated 31.08.2022 and pass suitable orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court is not granting any positive direction/order in favour of the petitioner.

5. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

06.10.2022 ogy Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes / No.

4/6

1. The Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai.

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

3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, O/o. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Melur, Madurai District.

4. The Inspector of Police, Melur Police Station, Madrai District.

5/6

T.V.THAMILSELVI , J.

ogy 06.10.2022 6/6