Madras High Court
Kothandapani vs The Director General Of Police on 8 January, 2016
Author: R.Subbiah
Bench: R.Subbiah
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 08.01.2016 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH WP.No.39959 of 2015 Kothandapani ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Director General of Police, O/o.Director General of Police, Santhome High Road, Mylapore, Chennai. 2.The Commissioner of Police, Trichy District, Trichy. ... Respondents Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of MANDAMUS directing the first respondent to provide adequate police protection for petitioner's life and limb and dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 17.10.2015. For Petitioner : Mr.Kothandapani, Party-in-person For Respondents : Mr.C.Emalias Additional Public Prosecutor O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed seeking Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to provide adequate police protection for petitioner life and limb and dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 17.10.2015.
2. The petitioner belongs to Sidda Maruthuvar family and petitioner's forefathers and the petitioner are practising Sidda medicine for more than a decade. The petitioner also completed certificate course in the above discipline from the traditional Gurukulam. Out of his own interest, the petitioner invented certain medicines for incurable diseases and the medicines invented by him were tested though his relatives. Since the petitioner needs recognition by way of license from the Indian Medicine and Homeopathy Department to test the said medicine by way of animal test, he approached the Medical Department , but no action has been taken and no report has been received so far. According to the petitioner, by knowing the invention of the petitioner, he received so many phone calls from different destinations stating that they are ready to sponsor the petitioner for production of the said medicine for which the petitioner would be paid lucrative amount otherwise they would do way with his life. Many unknown persons are threatening the petitioner over phone. Hence, the petitioner submitted a representation before the first respondent on 17.10.2015. But no action has been taken on the said representation till date. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with the present Criminal Original Petition.
3. I have heard the petitioner, who is appearing as party in person and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
4. The Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed to grant such direction stating that the petitioner has not made out any case for providing police protection. But the petitioner denies the contention of Additional Public Prosecutor and sought for direction.
5. Irrespective of the submissions made on either side, this court directs the first respondent to forward the representation of the petitioner to the second respondent, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the said representation, the second respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 17.10.2015 purely on merits. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of the claim of the petitioner.
6. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
08.01.2016 vrc To
1.The Director General of Police, O/o.Director General of Police, Santhome High Road, Mylapore, Chennai.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Trichy District, Trichy.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
R.SUBBIAH, J.
vrc WP.No.39959 of 2015 DATED: 08.01.2016