Madras High Court
WP CRL.(MD)/5007/2026 of Arumugakani Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep. on 3 September 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 03.09.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE P. MURUGAN
WP.CRL.(MD). No.5007 of 2026
Arumugakani
...Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State Rep by its
The Superintendent of Police,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Kenikarai Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.
...Respondent
PRAYER :- Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to take appropriate action of the petitioner's complaint dated 17.08.2026 and do further necessary proceedings in accordance with law within stipulated time as fixed by this Court.
( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 10:04:48 pm )
WP.CRL.(MD).No.5007 of 2026
For Petitioner : Mr. S. Bharathi
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.
O R D E R
Heard both sides.
2. The prayer in the writ petition is to direct the first respondent to take appropriate action on the petitioner’s complaint dated 17.08.2026.
3. The petitioner was given permission to run a street vendor business and as per the license he was doing business. On one fine day, the Municipal Inspector Mr. Saravanan, came to the spot and seized the four wheeler fruit cart. Thereby, the petitioner made a complaint dated 17.08.2026 to the second respondent to take legal action against the Municipal Authority. The second respondent kept silent without taking any action against the Municipal Authority. Therefore, this writ petition is filed.
( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 10:04:48 pm )
WP.CRL.(MD).No.5007 of 2026
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), submitted that, it is true that the petitioner’s complaint was received and it is stated that since the petitioner fruit cart vehicle has been seized by the Municipal Authority, they will take necessary legal action as per the complaint allegations, enquire into the matter and take a better decision.
5. Recording the above submission, the second respondent is directed to look into the complaint of the petitioner and conduct enquiry with both the parties and take a better decision within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
6. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. 03.09.2026 Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No NCC :Yes/No psa
( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 10:04:48 pm )
WP.CRL.(MD).No.5007 of 2026 To
1. The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.
2. The Inspector of Police, Kenikarai Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 10:04:48 pm )
WP.CRL.(MD).No.5007 of 2026 DR. P. MURUGAN, J. psa
W.P.CRL.(MD). No.5007 of 2026
03.09.2026
( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 10:04:48 pm )