Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2009
  6. /
  7. January

V.Azhagar @ Azhagarsamy vs The State Of Tamil Nadu

Madras High Court|08 December, 2009

JUDGMENT / ORDER

This writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of Mandamus, to direct the second and the third respondents to visit Thazhaikadai, in Sirumalai Village, to access the damage to the property and to draw a list of victims and consequently, direct the second respondent to provide the relief of compensation to the victims of the atrocities on Tribals, including the petitioner.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that, on 30.09.2009, at about 5.00 p.m, four persons had entered the petitioner's house with deadly weapons and had inflicted injuries on the petitioner and his father. Thereafter, the petitioner had been admitted for treatment in the Government Hospital, Dindigul.
3. It has also been stated that the petitioner had lodged a complaint before the Taluk Police Station, Dindigul, to take necessary action against the culprits. However, no action has been taken based on the complaint lodged by the petitioner, even after repeated requests.
4. Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, relied upon Clauses 1 to 3 of Rule 12 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1995, which reads as follows.
"Measures to be taken by the District Administration: (1)The District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police shall visit the place or area where the atrocity has been committed to assess the loss of life and damage to the property and draw a list of victims, their family members and dependents entitled for relief.
(2)Superintendent of Police shall ensure that the First Information Report is registered in the book of the concerned police station and effective measure for apprehending the accused are taken.
(3)The Superintendent of Police, after spot inspection, shall immediately appoint an investigating officer and deploy such police force in the area and take such other preventive measures as he may deem proper and necessary."
5. It is stated that there is a duty cast on the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police to visit the place or area, where the atrocity has been committed, to assess the loss of life and to draw a list of victims, their family members and dependents who may be entitled to reliefs. The Superintendent of Police is also to ensure that effective measures are taken to apprehend the accused after making spot inspection.
6. It has been stated that necessary information had been given to the second respondent, on 19.10.2009, and to the fifth respondent, on 18.10.2009, but no action had been taken against the accused persons, till date. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
7. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice if the third respondent is directed to take appropriate action, in accordance with Rule 12 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1995, after making necessary investigation, within a specified time.
8. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents has no objection for this Court passing such an order.
9. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, the third respondent is directed to initiate appropriate action, in accordance with Rule 12 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1995, to investigate and to take appropriate action, in respect of the complaint of the petitioner, by deputing a responsible officer to investigate and to file a report, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order.
10. The writ petition is disposed of, with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
Cs To
1.The Secretary, Department of Home, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai.
2.The District Collector/District Magistrate, Dindigul District.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul.
4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul.
5.The Inspector of Police, Taluk Police Station, Dindigul.
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

V.Azhagar @ Azhagarsamy vs The State Of Tamil Nadu

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
08 December, 2009