Arumugam vs The Superintendent of Police and The Inspector of Police

G. Rajasuria, J.—Heard Mr. T.A.Ebenezer, learned Counsel for the petitioner and also Mr. D.Sasikumar, learned Government Advocate, who took notice on behalf of the respondents.

The grievance of the petitioner as aired by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, is to the effect that unnecessarily the police is retaining the name of the petitioner in the list of rowdies.

Whereas the learned Government Advocate would submit that three cases were booked as against the petitioner and out of that one case ended in conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 342, 323, 324 and 307 of I.P.C. and in the remaining two cases, the petitioner/accused was acquitted.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that taking into account the nature of the case, there is no necessity to retain the name of the petitioner in the rowdy list.

Hence, in these circumstances, the following direction is issued:

The first respondent viz., the Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District shall do well to see that the representation of the petitioner dated 01.11.2008 is considered strictly in accordance with Section 748(2) of the Police Standing Order, after giving due opportunity of being heard to the petitioner within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

G.RAJASURIA, J. DP/SMN

With the above said direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.