A mandamus for a police misconduct inquiry is infructuous once the inquiry is completed.

The petitioner, a lawyer practising in Sathyamangalam, alleged that Sub-Inspectors in the District Crime Branch, Erode, treated him in a hostile manner and refused to accept his representations when he visited in connection with a complaint against his client.

He sought a mandamus directing senior police officials to conduct a fair enquiry and take appropriate action.

The judgment records that the petition sought disposal of representations dated 17.08.2024, 25.04.2024 and 29.08.2025.

It also records the petitioner’s allegation that he complained on 17.08.2026.

The State submitted that the two officers had been transferred and that the Superintendent of Police had enquired into the matter and directed them to act responsibly in future.

The Court closed the petition, finding that the requested relief no longer survived.

1. Whether the petitioner’s request for a direction to conduct an enquiry and take action remained live after the Superintendent of Police had enquired into the complaint and closed the matter

2. Whether any further relief should be granted in the writ petition, or whether the petitioner should pursue other remedies

The Court applied the principle governing mandamus that a writ direction is warranted where a public duty remains to be performed and corresponding relief is still required.

Where the authority has already enquired into and closed the matter, the Court may treat the requested writ relief as no longer subsisting.

The judgment cites no statute or precedent; it also notes that the petitioner may pursue other available remedies, including a civil suit for damages or a complaint before the State Human Rights Commission or another authority.

The Court relied on the State’s submission that the Superintendent of Police had conducted an enquiry and directed the officers to act responsibly in future; it also noted that both officers had been transferred from the District Crime Branch.

On that basis, the Court considered the requested enquiry-related relief no longer available for grant and found that no live relief remained in the writ petition.

It left the petitioner free to pursue other remedies if he continued to have a grievance.

It closed the writ petition and, without granting further relief, left it open to the petitioner to approach a civil court, the State Human Rights Commission or another appropriate authority.