P RATHINAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the petitioner in person and Mr. K. Balasubramanian, the learned Additional Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 to 7. There is no appearance on behalf of the 8th respondent.

(2.) THIS petition has been filed by a practising Advocate, in public interest, for issuing a writ of mandamus with the following directions: ". . . (i) directing the respondents 1 to 3 to take all necessary steps to enforce the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the rules made thereunder without any delay to arrest the menace of untouchability being practised even by the public servants; (ii) directing the first respondent to take all necessary steps to proceed against the public servants such as (1) The District Collector, Trichy District, (2) The Superintendent of Police, Trichy District, (3) The District Revenue Officer, Trichy District, (4) The Revenue Divisional Officer, Trichy District, (5) The Tahsildar, Manapparai Taluk, Manapparai, (6) The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Manapparai Taluk, Manapparai, for their abuse of power and their deliberate violations of Article 17 of the Constitution of India and Section 3(1)(XIV) and Section 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and such other penal provisions of appropriate enactment; (iii) Directing the respondents 2 to 7 to provide sufficient police protection to the scheduled caste people of Thirumalayanpatti Village during the cremation of dead bodies, in the "Cremation-cum-Graveyard" constructed under the State Governments Scheme called "Anaithu Grama Anna Marumalarchi Thittam-2008- 2009" situated on the northern side of Sampatti road at Thirumalayanpatti Village, Sampatti Panchayat, Manapparai Taluk, Trichy District and (iv) further directing the respondents 3 and 7 to register the joint complaint submitted by the scheduled caste people of Thirumalayanpatti Village to the 7th respondent dated 23.11.2008 and representation dated 19.12.2008 submitted to the 3rd respondent i.e., the Superintendent of Police of Trichy District and to investigate the same in accordance with law.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 7. Even though the 8th respondent, the President, Sampatti Panchayat, had entered appearance through Advocate, there is no appearance on his behalf when the case was called on 05.03.2009 and, similarly, there is no appearance on his behalf when the case is posted today. No counter has been filed by the 8th respondent.