SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 45946

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Victoria Gowri, J
Anjalai – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
Writ Petition



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: R.Alagumani
For the Respondents: D.Rajaboopathy

The High Court may issue a Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution to direct police authorities to process a pending representation and conclude necessary enquiries within a specified timeframe.

Headnote:Statute Analysis: The case involves the invoking of Article 226 of the Constitution of India concerning police action and representation. Facts of the Case: A petition was filed for a Mandamus directing police authorities to act upon a representation dated 16.03.2026.

Findings of Court:
The court found that an enquiry by the police was pending and directed the completion of such enquiry within a set timeframe.

Issues: The court considered whether relief in the nature of mandamus was necessary to compel police action on a pending representation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court exercised its power to direct police enquiry and potential grant of protection, noting that police proceedings should be concluded expeditiously under the procedural framework.

Result: The writ petition stands disposed of with directions.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeking mandate for police action on representation. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court directs police to conduct enquiry and consider protection. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the third respondent to take appropriate action on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 16.03.2026 in accordance with law within the time stipulated by this Court.

2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent police submitted that the enquiry is pending.

3. Heard the learned counsel on either sides and carefully perused the materials available on record. Since no adverse order is proposed to be passed against the fourth respondent, notice to him is dispensed with.

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the third respondent police is directed to issue notices to both the petitioner and the fourth respondent under Section 64 of the BNSS, conduct an enquiry, and conclude the same within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

5. Upon conclusion of the enquiry, if it is found necessary that the petitioner be provided with adequate protection, the third respondent police shall afford appropriate police protection to the petitioner, subject to payment of the requisite charges, in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.139, Home (Pol-VIII)

Department, dated 04.03.2019.

6. With the above direction, this writ petition stands disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top