Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, K. Karthikeyan, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai, and the Inspector of Police, Manamadurai Police Station, to consider his representation dated 27.09.2024 and take necessary action on his complaint. The petition was heard by Justice P. Dhanabal. The Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents submitted that the complaint had already been considered and was closed on 21.11.2024 after due enquiry, as the matter was civil in nature, and the closure report was served on the petitioner. The court, having heard both sides and perused the records, noted that the prayer sought was only to consider the complaint, which had already been done. Consequently, nothing survived for further adjudication. The writ petition was closed with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the closure report in the manner known to law. No order as to costs was made. The judgment was delivered on 03.03.2025.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Mandamus - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the police to consider his complaint dated 27.09.2024. The police already considered the complaint and closed it on 21.11.2024 after enquiry, finding it civil in nature, and served the closure report. Held that nothing survives for adjudication and the petition is closed with liberty to challenge the closure report. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued when the representation/complaint has already been considered and a closure report filed
Final Decision
Writ petition closed with liberty to challenge closure report, no costs
Law Points
- When the relief sought in a writ petition has already been granted or the representation considered
- the writ petition becomes infructuous
- liberty to challenge closure report granted
