Refugine Nirmal v. The Superintendent of Police,

ORDER This petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the 1st and 2nd respondents to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner, his employees, machineries, vehicles and for the peaceful and lawful operation of the petitioner's stone crusher situated at S.F.Nos.10/10 Inam Kovilpatti Village, Manapparai Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District, on the basis of the petitioner's representations dated 17.02.2026 and 08.06.2026 and consequently restrain the respondents 3 to 4 and their men from unlawfully interfering with the petitioner's lawful business activities within a time frame to be stipulated by this Court.

¶2When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent police submitted that the petitioner had submitted a representation dated 17.02.2026 seeking police protection. It was further submitted that, upon enquiry, it was found that a Public Interest Litigation had been filed by a whistleblower in W.P.(MD) No.12726 of 2026 seeking to restrain the operation of the petitioner's stone crusher unit. In view of the pendency of the said writ petition, the petitioner's representation was closed.

¶3The learned Government Advocate further submitted that, subsequently, W.P.(MD) No.12726 of 2026 came to be dismissed by this Court by order dated 01.06.2026. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a fresh representation dated 08.06.2026 seeking adequate police protection for operating the stone crusher unit. It was submitted that the said representation is still pending consideration before the respondent police.

¶4Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court. Considering the nature of the order proposed to be passed in this petition, notice to the private respondents is dispensed with.

¶5Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the third respondent police is directed to issue notices to both the petitioner and the private respondents under Section 64 of the BNSS, conduct an enquiry, and conclude the same within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶6Upon conclusion of the enquiry, if it is found necessary that the petitioner be provided with adequate protection, the second respondent police shall afford appropriate police protection to the petitioner, subject to payment of the requisite charges, in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.139, Home (Pol-VIII) Department, dated 04.03.2019.

¶7With the above direction, this writ petition stands disposed of.

30.06.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No sm TO:-

¶1The Superintendent of Police, Trichy.

¶2The Inspector of Police, Vaiyampatti Police Station, Trichy.

¶3The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J. Sm Dated

30.06.2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 30.06.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI Refugine Nirmal ... Petitioner Vs. 1. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Superintendent of Police, Trichy. 2. The Inspector of Police, Vaiyampatti Police Station, Trichy. 3. Vairamuthu 4. Sakthi ... Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing 1st and 2nd respondents to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner, his employees, machineries, vehicles and for the peaceful and lawful operation of the petitioner's stone crusher situated at S.F.Nos.10/10 Inam Kovilpatti Village, Manapparai Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District, on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 17.02.2026 and 08.06.2026 and consequently restrain the respondents 3 to 4 and their men from unlawfully interfering with the petitioner's lawful business activities within a time frame to be stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.W.Pamelin For Respondents : Mr.D.Rajaboopathy (R1 & R2) Government Advocate (Crl. Side)