Madras High Court
WP CRL.(MD)/5087/2026 of S.Solaiyappan Vs The State of Tamil Nadu rep on 10 September 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 10.09.2026
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE P.MURUGAN
WP.Crl.(MD).No.5087 of 2026
S.Solaiyappan
... Petitioner
.Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu Represented
By, the Superintendent of Police,
Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Ettayapuram Police Station,
Thoothukudi District.
... Respondents
Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to dispose of the representation dated.31.08.2026 within the stipulated time fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Sivaram
For Respondents : Mr.D.Rajaboopathy
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Mr.D.Rajaboopathy, learned Government Advocate, (Crl. Side) takes notice for the respondents. Heard the counsel on either side and perused the
( Uploaded on: 11/09/2026 06:25:09 pm )
WP.Crl.(MD)No.5087 of 2026 records.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner's representation dated 31.08.2026, seeking permission to conduct protest against some police officials, has not been considered by the second respondent. Hence, the present petition has been filed.
3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that, after filing the present petition, the petitioner had given an undertaking that he would get justice from the pending case before this Court. It is further submitted that, in view of the pendency of the present petition before this Court, the petitioner had undertaken that he would not cause any disturbance and withdrawn the protest petition. Based on the said undertaking, the police had closed the enquiry on the petitioner's representation.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, though the petitioner had submitted a representation seeking police protection for conducting a demonstration against the police action of the police officials of the concerned Police Station, even before the commencement of the demonstration, forcibly took the petitioner and obtained his signature in a
( Uploaded on: 11/09/2026 06:25:09 pm )
WP.Crl.(MD)No.5087 of 2026 letter containing the contents prepared by them. Therefore, there was no voluntary withdrawal of the proposed protest by the petitioner. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner had not submitted any letter withdrawing his representation or the proposed protest. The said submission is recorded.
5. In view of the above, the second respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 31.08.2026, after conducting due enquiry with the petitioner and considering his grievance, in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. 10.09.2026 TM To
1. The Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.
2. The Inspector of Police, Ettayapuram Police Station, Thoothukudi District.
( Uploaded on: 11/09/2026 06:25:09 pm )
WP.Crl.(MD)No.5087 of 2026
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
( Uploaded on: 11/09/2026 06:25:09 pm )
WP.Crl.(MD)No.5087 of 2026 DR.P.MURUGAN, J., TM WP.Crl.(MD).No.5087 of 2026 10.09.2026
( Uploaded on: 11/09/2026 06:25:09 pm )