Madras High Court
Lieutenant Colonel. S.Ganesan ... vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 21 April, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.900 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 21.04.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)No.900 of 2021
and
C.M.P(MD)No.4044 of 2021
Lieutenant Colonel. S.Ganesan (Retd.) ... Appellant / Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
represented by its Chief Secretary,
Secretariat,
Fort St.George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The State of Tamil Nadu,
represented by the Home Secretary,
Department of Home,
Fort St.George,
Chennai-600 009.
3.The Director General of Police,
Office of the Director General of Police,
Beach Road, Mylapore,
Chennai-600 004.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/10
W.A.(MD)No.900 of 2021
4.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
O/o the Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Madurai Range,
New Natham Road,
Madurai.
5.The District Collector,
Collectorate,
Virudhunagar District.
6.The Superintendent of Police,
O/o the Superintendent of Police,
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar.
7.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Revenue Divisional Office,
Aruppukottai,
Virudhunagar District.
8.The Inspector of Police,
Aruppukottai Town Police Station,
Virudhunagar District.
9.Kumaravel,
Inspector of Police,
Aruppukottai Town Police Station,
Virudhunagar District
presently working at
District Crime Branch,
Nagercoil.
10.Jeyaseelan,
Sub-Inspector of Police,
Aruppukottai Town Police Station,
Virudhunagar District
presently working at
Special Cell, SP Security,
Office of Commissioner of Police,
Egmore, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2/10
W.A.(MD)No.900 of 2021
11.Ramar,
Grade II Police Constable(1847),
Aruppukottai Town Police Station,
Virudhunagar District
presently working at
Aruppukottai Town Police Station,
Virudhunagar District.
12.Elangovan
Head Constable,
Presently working at
Aruppukottai Town Police Station,
Virudhunagar District.
13.Gurusamy,
Grade II Police Constable(631),
presently retired
Notice sent through
The Superintendent of Police,
Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents / Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying to
set aside the order dated 15.10.2020 made in W.P.(MD)No.238 of 2014 on the
file of this Court.
For Appellant : Mr.T.Selvan
For Respondents 1 to 8 : Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss,
Special Government Pleader
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
3/10
W.A.(MD)No.900 of 2021
JUDGMENT
***************
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.]
This writ appeal filed by the appellant / writ petitioner is directed
against the order, dated 15.10.2020 passed in W.P.(MD)No.238 of 2014.
2.The said writ petition was filed by the appellant to direct the
appellant to conduct and complete the departmental enquiry against the erring
Police Officers, who have been arrayed as accused in C.C.No.207 of 2012
pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Aruppukkottai, under the
provisions of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services Disciplinary and
Appeal Rules, 1955.
3.We have heard Mr.T.Selvam, learned Standing Counsel for the
appellant and Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss, learned Special Government Pleader
appearing for the respondents 1 to 8. Since the respondents 9 to 13 did not
enter appearance in the writ petition, though the writ petition was pending from
2014 and disposed of only in the year 2020 and noting that there is a factual
error has occurred while disposing of the writ petition, we dispensed with the
notice to the respondents 9 to 13.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.900 of 2021
4. The learned Writ Court had dismissed the writ petition on the
ground that the criminal case has been quashed by this Court in Crl.O.P(MD)
Nos.20970 of 2013 and 4423 of 2015, dated 26.04.2018.
5.The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to
Ground No.8 in the memorandum of grounds, which reads as follows :
"8.The common order in both Crl.OP.No.4423 of
2015 and 20970 of 2013 has been extracted below :-
PARA 1 TO 6. xxx xxxx xxxxx xxx
7.This Court is of the view that the materials on
record conclusively establish that Lieutenant Colonel
Thiru.Ganesan (then captain) is a victim at the hands of the
accused Police personnel. This Court had allowed the
quash petition filed by the police only on a technical
ground. This Court had earlier held that a private
complaint by the Executive Magistrate will not lie. It is
only in that view of the matter, Crl.O.P.(MD) No.4423 of
2015 filed by the Police personnel has been allowed by this
Court.
PARA 8 TO 11. xxx xxxx xxxxx xxx
12. The order of this Court allowing Crl.O.P.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.900 of 2021
(MD) No.4423 of 2015 quashing C.C.No.207 of 2012 will
not come in the way of Lieutenant Colonel Thiru.Ganesan
from taking such steps as are available to him in law for
prosecuting the erring police personnel."
6.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he did not have
the copy of the order, but the operative portion of the order passed in the
Criminal Original Petitions as above.
7.On going through the above order, it is seen that though the criminal
cases were quashed, the Court observed that the said order will not come in the
way of the appellant before us from taking such steps as available to him in law
for prosecuting the erring Police Personnel. It appears that this observation was
not brought to the notice of the learned Writ Court and had it been done,
probably the result would have been different in the writ petition.
8.In any event, since quashing of the criminal case was held to be not
a bar for the appellant to take steps as are available to him in law for
prosecuting the erring Police Personnel, the writ petition could not have been
dismissed for the reasons stated in the impugned order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.900 of 2021
9. It is seen that the petitioner though prayed for a Writ of Mandamus
to be issued against respondents 1 to 6, we find that there is no representation
submitted by the appellant to the authorities, which is a prerequisite for a person
to invoke the extraordinary remedy of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. Therefore, the appellant should submit a representation
and thereafter, it can be directed to be considered by the concerned official
respondent.
10.In the result, this Writ Appeal is allowed and the order passed in
the writ petition is set aside and the writ petition in W.P(MD)No.238 of 2014, is
disposed of, by giving liberty to the appellant to submit a representation to the
sixth respondent, namely, the Superintendant of Police, Virudhunagar District
and if such representation is submitted, the same shall be considered and orders
be passed on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[T.S.S., J.] & [S.A.I., J.]
21.04.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
RM
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.900 of 2021
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for
official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order
that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1.The Chief Secretary,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Home Secretary,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Department of Home,
Fort St.George,
Chennai-600 009.
3.The Director General of Police,
Office of the Director General of Police,
Beach Road, Mylapore,
Chennai-600 004.
4.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
O/o the Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Madurai Range,
New Natham Road,
Madurai.
5.The District Collector,
Collectorate,
Virudhunagar District.
6.The Superintendent of Police,
O/o the Superintendent of Police,
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.900 of 2021
7.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Revenue Divisional Office,
Aruppukottai,
Virudhunagar District.
8.The Inspector of Police,
Aruppukottai Town Police Station,
Virudhunagar District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.900 of 2021
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
AND
S.ANANTHI, J.
RM
JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A.(MD)No.900 of 2021
21.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
