Disposed

Xavier Sundaram v. the District Registrar

Madras HC2 Jul 2015WP(MD)/11072/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the pendency of a complaint regarding fraudulent registration. The Madurai Bench, without expressing an opinion on merits, directed the respondents to consider the complaint, grant opportunities to interested parties, and pass appropriate orders within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondent to consider complaint on merits and pass appropriate orders within six weeks.

Xavier Sundaram Vs the District Registrar — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 02.07.2015

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.11072 of 2015

¶7

1.Tmt.Xavier Sundaram

¶8

2.Mr.K.Puvanendran ... Petitioners

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The District Registrar (Administrative), Madurai North, Thirumogur Road, Y.Othakadai, Madurai-107.

¶11

2.The Sub-Registrar O/o.Thamaraipatti Sub-Registrar, Thirumogur Road, Y.Othakadai, Madurai-107. ... Respondents

¶12

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1^st respondent to pass appropriate orders on the basis of the petitioner's complaint in Ref.ROC.6204/B1/2011 dated 3.7.2012 with regard to cancellation of fraudulent registration and launching of prosecution as per the provision laid down by the Registration Act.

¶13

For Petitioners : Mr.D.Anbarasu For Respondents : Mr.S.Satheesh Kumar

¶14

Additional Government Pleader

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

This writ petition has been filed for a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1^st respondent to pass appropriate orders on the basis of the petitioner's complaint in Ref.ROC.6204/B1/2011 dated 3.7.2012 with regard to cancellation of fraudulent registration https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and launching of prosecution as per the provision laid down by the Registration Act.

¶17

¶18

2.The petitioners have made a complaint to the first respondent dated 03.07.2012 with regard to cancellation of fradulent registration and launching of prosecution as per the provision laid down by the Registration Act, and the said complaint is kept pending. The learned counsel for the petitioners seek the indulgence of this Court for a direction to the first respondent to consider the complaint of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders on merits.

¶19

3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Additional Government Pleader, who took notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶20

4.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the complaint of the petitioners dated 03.07.2012 on merits and in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders, after giving opportunity to the petitioners as well as the interested parties if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶21

¶22

ASST REGISTRAR ( AS )

TRUE COPY

SUB ASST REGISTRAR

KM To

1.The District Registrar (Administrative), Madurai North, Thirumogur Road, Y.Othakadai, Madurai-107.

¶27

2.The Sub-Registrar O/o.Thamaraipatti Sub-Registrar, Thirumogur Road, Y.Othakadai, Madurai-107.

¶28

1CC TO MR. D. ANBARASAN ADV SR: 35408 1CC TO THE SPL GP SR: 36104 DM 14 7 15 – 2P 5C

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶30

W.P.(MD)No.11072 of 2015 02.07.2015

Xavier Sundaram v. the District Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Xavier Sundaram v. the District Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.R.Karthik Sankar, Vs the Commissioner

Jebarson, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

G.Rajamani, Vs the Secretary to Govt.

R. Muthukumaran, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

R.Shajahan Vs the District Collector

G.Saroja Vs the Director