Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Selvi, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Director General of Police and the Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi District, to consider her representations dated 06.02.2025 and 07.02.2025, and further directing the fifth respondent, Varadharajan, to conduct a preliminary enquiry based on her complaint dated 01.02.2025. The petitioner claimed ownership of certain house properties in Sivagiri, Tenkasi District, which had been unlawfully occupied by one Ganesan. She lodged a complaint and sent representations to the police authorities but no action was taken, prompting the writ petition. During the pendency of the petition, the fourth respondent, Sub Inspector of Police, Sivagiri Police Station, received the complaint, conducted an enquiry, and closed the matter on 01.03.2025, treating it as a civil dispute. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the representations had been considered and closed. The Court observed that since the prayer was to consider the representations and the same had already been considered and closed, the writ petition was rendered infructuous. The Court further observed that it was open to the petitioner to challenge the closure of the complaint in the manner known to law. Accordingly, the writ petition was closed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ of Mandamus - Article 226, Constitution of India - Where the police have already considered a representation and closed the complaint as a civil dispute, a writ of mandamus for consideration of the representation is not maintainable; the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the closure in accordance with law - Held that the writ petition is closed (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to consider representations when the police have already considered and closed the complaint as a civil dispute.
Final Decision
Writ petition closed with observation that the petitioner may challenge the closure of the complaint in the manner known to law. No costs.
Law Points
- writ of mandamus
- Article 226
- police complaint closure
- civil dispute
- alternative remedy
- representation already considered
Case Details
2025 LawText (MAD) (03) 273
R. Arun Kumar, R.M. Anbunithi
1. The Director General of Police, 2. The Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi District, 3. The Inspector of Police, Sivagiri Police Station, 4. The Sub Inspector of Police, Sivagiri Police Station, 5. Varadharajan
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus.
Remedy Sought
Direction to respondents 1 & 2 to consider representations dated 06.02.2025 and 07.02.2025 and to direct the fifth respondent to conduct a preliminary enquiry based on complaint dated 01.02.2025.
Filing Reason
Petitioner's house was unlawfully occupied by one Ganesan; she lodged a complaint and sent representations but no action was taken by the police.
Previous Decisions
The fourth respondent, Sub Inspector of Police, conducted an enquiry and closed the complaint as a civil dispute on 01.03.2025.
Issues
Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued when the police have already considered the representation and closed the complaint.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner contended that despite lodging a complaint and sending representations, no action was taken by the police, warranting a writ of mandamus.
Respondents submitted that the police had already enquired and closed the complaint as a civil dispute, rendering the writ petition infructuous.
Ratio Decidendi
When the police have already considered a representation and closed the complaint, a writ of mandamus for consideration of the representation becomes infructuous. The petitioner may challenge the closure order in accordance with law.
Judgment Excerpts
Since the prayer in the writ petition is to consider the representation of the petitioner and since the same has already been considered and closed, it is for the petitioner to challenge the same in the manner known to law.
the fourth respondent police received the complaint of the petitioner, conducted enquiry and closed the same as civil dispute on 01.03.2025.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed the writ petition. During pendency, the fourth respondent police considered the representations, conducted enquiry, and closed the complaint as a civil dispute on 01.03.2025. The matter came up for hearing on 03.03.2025, and the court closed the petition with the above observation.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
