Subramani Crusher v. The Superintendent Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 27.11.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Subramani Crusher Rep by its Proprietor, Kandasamy Subramanian ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Superintendent of Police Karur, Karur District.
2.The Inspector of Police Velayuthampalayam Police Station Karur District.
3.V.Jotheeswaran 4.Kandasamy ... Respondents PRAYER:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner based on his representation by in person dated 16.10.2019. For Petitioner : MR.S.Prabhakaran Senior Counsel for Mr.MA.Gouthaman For R1 & R2 : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi Govt. Advocate(Crl.side)
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the first respondent to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner based on his representation by in person dated 16.10.2019.
2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is carrying out quarrying and crushing of blue metal business under the name and style of Subramani Crusher Ltd.. The property to the extent of 1.57.0 hectares and also having quarrying premises from the Government of Tamilnadu. Those lines are follows:
Sl.No.
Survey No.
Total Extent (Hect) 1.
443/1 0.12.0 2.
443/2 0.24.0 3.
443/3A 0.40.5 4.
443/3B 0.80.5 Total 1.57.0 1/3
All the above survey numbers are situate at Kuppam Village, Aravakkurichi Taluk in Karur District. The above said joint agreement was registered as Doc. No.756 of 2018 dated 04.05.2018 and registered at Sub-Registrar office, Karur District.
3. While being so, the respondents 3 and 4 with intention to get unlawful gain from the petitioner, are preventing the petitioner from carrying water from the well. So, the petitioner could not do so because of the continuous obstruction by the respondents 3 and 4. Therefore, the petitioner is unable to carry-out his business. As such, he was constrained to lodge a complaint before the second respondent for seeking adequate police protection to carry-out his business.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police filed counter and submitted that the petitioner is carrying out quarrying and crushing of blue metal business under the name and style of Subramani Crusher. It is not dispute that the petitioner was taking water through lorry from outside, to the above said quarrying and crushing units for their needs. Further, he submitted that a complaint was lodged by the petitioner against the respondents 3 and 4 as if they are obstructing them from carrying water from their well to the crusher and quarry unit. On receipt of the complaint from the petitioner, the respondent police investigated the villagers and came to know that the respondents 2 and 3 and some other persons at their command causing frequent disturbance to the petitioner to carry the water to his business field, demanding money.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances, the second respondent is directed to consider the complaint of the petitioner and after conducting enquiry with the respondents-3 & 4 and provide adequate police protection to the petitioner for carrying water from the well to the quarrying and crushing unit, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
6. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS ) 2/3
Ls To 1.The Superintendent of Police Karur, Karur District.
2.The Inspector of Police Velayuthampalayam Police Station Karur District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai.
+1 CC to Mr.MA. GOWTHAMAN, Advocate ( SR-102062[F] dated 28/11/2019 ) 27.11.2019 MK (09.12.2019) 3P 5C 3/3