Rajafedalcostro vs. The Superintendent Of Police

Facts

The petitioner, proprietor of M/s. Rasego Traders, engaged in import and export of sea foods and registered under GST, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the police respondents to ensure the peaceful conduct of his business. He alleged that the third respondent, a local influential person, caused hindrance to his business, demanded money, and threatened him. The petitioner claimed the third respondent prevented him from visiting his Chennai branch office, leading to its closure. He further alleged physical assault and repeated threats at his Ramanathapuram office. The petitioner stated he made complaints to the police on February 11, 2021, and February 23, 2021, but no action was taken. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner had only sent representations and not proper complaints, and that authorities were ready to consider the representation if the petitioner provided the required information.

Held

The Court noted the statement made by the learned Public Prosecutor. Recording this statement, the Writ Petition was disposed of with a specific direction. The Court directed the petitioner to approach the second respondent (Inspector of Police, R.S. Mangalam Police Station) with a proper complaint. If such a complaint is filed, the same is to be considered on its merits by the concerned authorities. No costs were awarded. The Court did not delve into the merits of the allegations against the third respondent or the alleged inaction of the police, as the matter was resolved based on the submission of the Public Prosecutor and the subsequent direction.

Key Issues

1. Whether the police authorities are obligated to provide protection to the petitioner for the peaceful conduct of his business, given the allegations of obstruction and threats by the third respondent, and the alleged inaction of the police. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the police have a duty to protect citizens and their businesses from unlawful interference, extortion, and threats, as alleged against the third respondent. He sought the court's intervention to ensure his business operations are not disrupted. Revenue/State's contention: The learned Public Prosecutor contended that the petitioner had not lodged proper complaints but only representations. The authorities were willing to consider the matter if the petitioner appeared before them and provided the necessary information as required.