A.Mohamed Mustafa vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 22 October, 2008

[Cites 1, Cited by 2]

Madras High Court

A.Mohamed Mustafa vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 22 October, 2008

Bench: G.Rajasuria

       

  

  

 
 
 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 22/10/2008

CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA

WP(MD).No.6820 of 2008
and
M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2008

A.Mohamed Mustafa		... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The State of Tamilnadu
  Rep. by Chief Secretary,
  St. George Fort,
  Chennai - 9.

2.The Inspector General of Police
     (Central Zone),
  Office of the Inspector General
     of Police,
  Tiruchirappalli.

3.The Superintendent of Police,
  Office of the Superintendent of Police
  Tiruchirappalli.

4.The Sub-Inspector of Police,
  Pulivalam Police Station,
  Tiruchirappalli.           	 ... Respondents


Prayer

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to
take appropriate action on the persons mentioned in the complaint dated
18.07.2008 and consequently directing the third and fourth respondent to
initiate criminal action on the basis of the allegations and investigate the
same in accordance with law.

!For Petitioner    ... Mr.S.Shanmuga Rajasekaran
^For Respondents   ... Mr.D.Sasikumar,
  1 to 3	       Government Advocate

:ORDER

Heard Mr.S.Shanmuga Rajasekaran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.D.Sasisekar, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 to 3.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would air the grievance of the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner was ex-communicated by various persons as against which the petitioner lodged a complaint with the third respondent, but there was no response and hence the petitioner prays for giving necessary direction to the authority concerned.

3. In this factual matrix, I would like to pass the following direction:

The third respondent shall consider the complaint given by the petitioner after giving due opportunity of being heard to him and do the needful strictly in accordance with law.

4. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

arul To

1.The Chief Secretary, State of Tamilnadu St. George Fort, Chennai - 9.

2.The Inspector General of Police (Central Zone), Office of the Inspector General of Police, Tiruchirappalli.

3.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police Tiruchirappalli.

4.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Pulivalam Police Station, Tiruchirappalli.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madras High Court