GOWRISHANKAR Vs. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed this writ petition praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to give adequate police protection for the life and limb of the petitioner and his family members, based upon the representations of the petitioner, dated 08.07.2020.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a B.Tech graduate and he is searching for a permanent job. The sixth respondent is his friend and he introduced the fourth respondent stating that he is his nephew, who is the contractor in Tamil Nadu News Print and Paper Limited (TNPL), TNPL Nagar, Velayuthampalayam, Karur District. Further, he had told the petitioner that the sixth respondent is also a political influenced person. The further case of the petitioner is that prior to the occurrence, the sixth respondent had told to the petitioner as there was a vacancy in Tamil Nadu News Print and Paper Limited (TNPL) and for availing the same, a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- is necessary. Further he made assurance before the petitioner as if the said amount was paid to him, he would get permanent job within a period of 120 days. By believing the words, the petitioner paid money on various dates as stated hereunder:-

(3.) According to the petitioner, the said transaction was done in the presence of the fourth and fifth respondents herein and also in addition to the above said transaction, the fourth and fifth respondents were received Rs.2,75,000/- on 29.10.2018 for getting Experience Certificate and in toto, the respondents 4 to 6 received a sum of Rs. 17,75,000/-. After receipt of the same, on 15.11.2019, the fifth respondent had informed the petitioner to come to TNPL Road, Velayuthampalayam, Karur District and shared a fake appointment order to the petitioner mobile phone with instruction to delete it at once seen. Further, he assured to the petitioner that he got appointment through post within few days. However, no such appointment order was issued by the Authority and thereafter, the petitioner realized that he had been deceived by the respondents 4 to 6.