Madras High Court
A.Kesavan vs ) Nirmala on 14 December, 2021
W.A(MD)No.680 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 14.12.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
W.A(MD)No.680 of 2021
and
CMP(MD)No.2941 of 2021
A.Kesavan ... Appellant
vs.
1) Nirmala
2) The Superintendent of Police,
Madurai District,
Madurai.
3) The Inspector of Police,
Silaiman Police Station,
Silaiman,
Madurai District. ... Respondents
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the
order dated 08.02.2021 made in W.P(MD)No.2094 of 2021.
For Appellants : Mr.R.Suriyanarayanan
For R1 : Mr.Ajmal Khan, Senior Counsel, for
M/s.Ajmal Associates
For R2 & R3 : Mr.M.Siddharthan
Additional Government Pleader
Page 1/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.680 of 2021
JUDGMENT
(Order of the Court was made by
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.)
The 1st respondent in the writ appeal had preferred a
writ petition, seeking a Mandamus, to direct the respondents to
provide police protection to the writ petitioner at the time of
surveying and fencing her property in Survey No.2/1A1E, situated
at Karupillaiyendal Village, Madurai East Taluk, Madurai District.
2. The said writ petition was allowed without going into
the merits of the claim made by the petitioner, directing the 2nd
respondent Police, to dispose of the representation of the writ
petitioner dated 08.12.2020. As no notice was issued to the
appellant herein, before giving that direction, the appeal has been
preferred by the appellant/3rd respondent in the writ petition. The
representation dated 08.12.2020 itself, is for giving police
protection to the writ petitioner at the time of surveying the land.
3. Today, on behalf of the 3rd respondent in this appeal,
one Mr.Senthil, Special Sub Inspector of Police, is present. Though
it was originally represented by the learned Additional Government
Page 2/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.680 of 2021
Pleader that both the parties were called for enquiry and they did
not co-operate in attending the enquiry, it was denied by the
counsel for the appellant stating that no such notice was issued.
4. Be that as it may, with the consent of both the counsels
and also the 3rd respondent present, 22nd of this month has been
fixed for the enquiry, on which date, both the appellant as well as
the 1st respondent, be present before the 3rd respondent. As the
relief sought for is for giving police protection, let the 3 rd respondent
enquire the parties, afford them opportunity of hearing, peruse the
documents and pass appropriate orders in this regard.
5. With the above direction, the Writ Appeal is disposed of.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[P.S.N.,J.] & [P.V.,J.]
14.12.2021
Index : Yes / No
bala
Page 3/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.680 of 2021
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
and
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
bala
To
1) The Superintendent of Police,
Madurai District,
Madurai.
2) The Inspector of Police,
Silaiman Police Station,
Silaiman,
Madurai District.
JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A(MD)No.680 of 2021
DATED : 14.12.2021
Page 4/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
