Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

M Arulnayagam vs The Inspector Of Police ( Law & Order ) J 6 And Others

Madras High Court|13 September, 2017
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13.09.2017 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P. No.28395 of 2004
M.Arulnayagam .. Petitioner -vs-
1. The Inspector of Police (Law & Order) J-6, Thiruvanmiyur Police Station, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai.
2. The Assistant Commissioner of Police (L& O) Adayar Police Station, Adayar, Chennai.
3. The Commissioner of Police Chennai City Commissioner of Police, Chennai 600 008. .. Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to to forbear the respondents 1 and 2 or any other police officials from interfering with the liberty and freedom of the petitioner.
For petitioner : Mr.V.Raghavachari For respondents : Mrs.K.Bhuvaneswari Government Advocate
ORDER
The petitioner filed a writ petition for issuance of a writ of mandamus to forbear the law enforcing Agency namely respondents 1 and 2 from interfering with the liberty and freedom of the petitioner.
2. The apprehension of the petitioner leading to the filing of the writ petition is that on 17.09.2004, at the instigation of one Mr.D. Srikanth, The Inspector of Police (Law & Order)/first respondent visited the petitioner's house and enquired about the petitioner's whereabouts. Further the police personnel threatened the office staffs that unless the petitioner appears before the second respondent, the petitioner will have to face severe consequences.
3. Aggrieved by the action of the police, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
4. On perusal of the material, none of the document shows the apprehension of the petitioner in the hands of the law enforcing agency. When there is no apprehension and there is no cause of action, filing of the writ petition is a pre-matured one.
In view of the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. However, if any coercive steps which contrary to law is taken by the law enforcing agency, the petitioner is granted liberty to file a petition before the appropriate forum for getting appropriate relief. No costs.
13.09.2017 gv/kas Speaking order:Non-speaking order Index: Yes/No Internet : Yes/No M.DHANDAPANI.,J.
gv To
1. The Inspector of Police (Law & Order) J-6, Thiruvanmiyur Police Station, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai.
2. The Assistant Commissioner of Police (L& O) Adayar Police Station, Adayar, Chennai.
3. The Commissioner of Police Chennai City Commissioner of Police, Chennai 600 008.
W.P. No.28395 of 2004
13.09.2017
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

M Arulnayagam vs The Inspector Of Police ( Law & Order ) J 6 And Others

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
13 September, 2017
Judges
  • M Dhandapani