Jms Makkal Manamazhil Mandram v. The Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 15.02.2024

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI and W.M.P.(MD).No.20041 of 2022 JMS Makkal Manamazhil Mandram, Represented by its Secretary, S.Franklin Immanuel ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dindigul Town, Dindigul.

3.The Inspector of Police, Taluk Police Station, Dindigul.

... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents and their agents from any manner interfering with the rights of the members of the petitioner's Mandram.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Shankar Ganesh For Respondents : Mr.B.Nambiselvan, Additional Public Prosecutor 1/6

O R D E R

This petition has been filed for issuance of Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents and their agents from any manner interfering with the rights of the members of the petitioner's Mandram.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is running a Mandram in the name and style of "JMS Makkal Manamazhil Mandram" and the above said Mandram was registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 and the Mandram is being run for the benefit of its members. According to the petitioner, the respondent Police are interfering and disturbing the activities of the above said Mandram, without following any provisions of law and disturbing the lawful activities of the Mandram. Hence, the petitioner made a representation before the respondent Police on 02.09.2022. Since no action has been taken by the respondents till date, the present petition has been filed.

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent Police would submit that as per the Tamil Nadu District Police 2/6

Act, the respondent Police are entitled to inspect any business premises, if there is a complaint.

4. Though the petitioner seeks larger relief, at the time of arguments, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that it would be suffice, if the representation of the petitioner dated 02.09.2022, is disposed of by the first respondent, on merits, as expeditiously as possible.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent Police on instructions would submit that if reasonable time is granted to them, appropriate orders will be passed on the representation of the petitioner.

6. In view of the above said submission and also considering the limited scope of the relief now sought for by the petitioner, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's claim, directs the first respondent Police to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 02.09.2022 and pass suitable orders thereon, on merits and 3/6

in accordance with law, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, if any unlawful activities came to the knowledge, it is open to the respondent Police to take action against the petitioner's Mandram.

7. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

15.02.2024 NCC:yes/no Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no TSG To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dindigul Town, Dindigul.

3.The Inspector of Police, Taluk Police Station, Dindigul.

4/6

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

5/6

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

TSG W.P.(MD).No.25914 of 2022 15.02.2024 6/6