1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:09.04.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN WP(MD)No.3244 of 2011 And MP(MD)No.1 of 2011 Sheik Syed Ali :Petitioner -Vs- 1.The Superintendent of Police,Kanyakumari District At Nagercoil. 2.The Inspector of Police,Colachel Police Station,Kanyakumari District. 3.Mr.Kanthakumar 4.Mr.Venugopal :Respondents PRAYER:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to consider the representation dated 14.02.2011 and to initiate further course of action pursuant to the same. For petitioner :Mr.T.Jeen Joseph For RR 1 & 2 :Mr.K.Balasubramanian,Additional Government Pleader For RR 3 & 4 :No appearance ORDER This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for a Mandamus directing the first respondent to consider the representation, dated 14.02.2011 and to initiate further course of action pursuant to the same. 2.According to the petitioner, on 25.12.2010, one Nizam along with 8 others trespassed into the house and threatened his father with dire consequences. The petitioner's father gave a written complaint to the second respondent. Since there was no response, a complaint by registered post was sent to the first respondent and thereafter, he was called for enquiry by the respondents 3 and 4 on 02.01.2011 at 5.00 p.m. Even though they were made to wait for a long time, the third respondent has supported the accused. He would also contend that the third respondent is a powerful man. Once again, on 17.012011, the third respondent attacked his brother Again a complaint was lodged with the fourth respondent, the Sub-Inspector of Police. The fourth respondent on seeing the injured person, did not send the brother of the petitioner to the hospital for treatment. Thereafter, he was taken to Government Hospital, Colachel and after getting first aid, he was admitted to Vinu Hospital. He would further contend that no action was taken as against the attack on his brother. He would also contend that he presented a complaint, on 19.01.2011, but the fourth respondent threatened him to withdraw the complaint given by his brother. The respondent police came to the hospital, and then registered a case in Crime No. 14 of 2011 Similarly, a case in Crime No. 18 of 2011 has been registered as against the petitioner by a complaint from Mrs. Thaheera, on 22.01.2011. According to the petitioner, the first respondent has not taken any steps and no steps have been taken in respect of the complaint made by him for the incident, on 22.01.2011 and they are very much interested only to withdraw the complaint Therefore, he has filed this Writ Petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3.Notice was issued. The learned Additional Government Pleader brought to the notice of this Court that the police has properly investigated into the matter. In fact, the Crime No. 18 of 2011 was registered on the complaint made by the opposite party as against the petitioner and in the complaint made by the petitioner, which he is now aggrieved also in Crime No. 14 of 2011, FIR has been registered on 20.01.2011. Therefore, the petitioner cannot have any grievance. His grievances have been redressed. He would further submit that immediately after his complaint, first case has been registered as against the third parties. Therefore, the present representation under the guise, for taking action is not at all maintainable. The innocuous prayer sought for is nothing but to interfere with the very working of respondent. 4.Heard both sides. 5.The only grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has given a complaint in respect of attack of father as well as the brother and the respondents 3 and 4 have not immediately investigated the matter or arrested the persons involved in this. Therefore, he has made a representation seeking for a direction to the first respondent to initiate action against the respondents 3 and 4, who are the officers, who are in charge. But at the same time, the learned Additional Government Pleader brought to the notice of this Court that the complaints given by the parties as against each other on two different occasions, the respondent authorities have acted fairly and already registered the complaints. In fact as far as the petitioner's complaint concerned, it was registered as Crime No. 14 of 2011 and thereafter the opposite party's case registered in Crime No. 18 of 2011. Now the petitioner would contend that due course apart from these two FIRs yet another complaint given by him was not properly considered, namely for the threatening of the father, on 25.12.2010. The representations given by him, do not call for any investigation but straight away asks the authority to take initiate action. Such direction initially cannot be granted first. When it is clearly proved that there are cases that has been duly registered by the authorities concerned. No doubt the innocuous prayer like consider the representation, when it is granted, which leads to disastrous consequences. Such innocuous form of representation cannot be directed to be considered as per the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in M.Ingaci Vs. The Commissioner and others reported in 2010 – 2- L.W. 785 and the relevant portion runs as follows:- “There are also several instances where unscrupulous petitioners with the connivance of “pliable” authorities have misused the direction “to consider” issued by Court. We may illustrate by an example. A claim, which is stale, time-barred or untenable, is put forth in the form of a representation. On the ground that the authority has not disposed of the representation within a reasonable time, the person making the representation approaches the High Court with an innocuous prayer to direct the authority to “consider” and dispose of the petition with a direction to “consider”, the authority grants the relief, taking shelter under the order of the Court directing him to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 “consider” the grant of relief. Instances are also not wanting where authorities, unfamiliar with the process and practice relating to writ proceedings and the nuances of judicial review, have interpreted or understood the order “to consider” as directing grant of relief sought in the representation and consequently granting reliefs which otherwise could not have been granted. Thus, action of the authorities granting undeserving relief, in pursuance of orders to “consider”, may be on account of ignorance, or on account of bona fide belief that they should grant relief in view fo the Court's direction to “consider” the claim, or on account of collusion / connivance between the person making the representation and the authority deciding it. Representations of daily wagers seeking regularisation/absorption into regular service is a species of cases, where there has been a large-scale misuse of the orders “to consider”. 6.When the petitioner has approached the authorities, the authorities should definitely take into consideration the grievances in the case. As the complaints have already been registered, it has been as under brought to the notice of this Court, the authorities concerned will look into the matter and investigate properly, but there can not be any Mandamus issued as prayed by the petitioner. The petitioner has not made out any case for the grant of the relief. 7.With the above said observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Accounts) / TRUE COPY / Assistant Registrar To: 1. The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District At Nagercoil. 2. The Inspector of Police, Colachel Police Station, Kanyakumari District. +1CC to Mr.T.Jeen Joseph, Advocate. SR.No.13499. +1CC to The Special Government Pleader. SR.No.13452. Vsg RP/25.05.2011/3P/5C. WP(MD)No.3244 of 2011 And MP(MD)No. 1 of 2011 09.04.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/