Dismissed

Palaniyandi v. the Deputy Inspector of

Madras HC24 Jul 2015WP(MD)/12898/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition sought a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to dispose of the petitioner's appeal within a stipulated time. The court directed the respondent to dispose of the appeal on merits within three months after allowing a hearing opportunity, dismissing the petition thereafter.

What did the court decide?

The respondent is directed to dispose of the appeal within three months after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.

Palaniyandi Vs the Deputy Inspector of — Specific Performance | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24.07.2015 Coram

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶4

W.P.(MD).No.12898 of 2015

¶5

Palaniyandi :Petitioner

¶6

vs.

¶7

1.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration,

¶8

Trichy Zone, Tiruchirappalli.

¶9

2.The District Registrar, District Registrar Office, Karur.

¶10

3.The Sub Registrar, Krishnarayapuram Sub Registrar Office, Karur District.

¶11

: Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the first respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner on 16.09.2014 in accordance with law within the stipulated time.

¶13

For Petitioner :Mr.G.Sridharan

¶14

For Respondent :Mr.T.R.Janarthanam

¶15

Additional Government Pleader

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The prayer in the Writ Petition is a Writ of Mandamus praying to direct the first respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner on 16.09.2014 in accordance with law within the stipulated time.

¶18

2.Mr.T.R.Janarthanam, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents and by consent of both parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶19

3.The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that it would suffice if the appeal of the petitioner is disposed of, on merits and in accordance with law, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶20

4.In view of the limited scope of the prayer, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue involved, the respondent is directed to dispose of the appeal of the petitioner, dated 16.09.2014, if not already disposed of, and pass appropriate orders on the same and in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after affording the petitioner an https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ opportunity of being heard. If on a specified date the petitioner does not appear for personal hearing, orders may be passed in accordance with law based on the available records after recording the absence of the

¶21

¶22

Party/Parties. The persons, who are likely to be affected are also to be heard before any final decision is to be taken.

¶23

5.With the above directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶24

Ssl Sd/Assistant Registrar(AS) /True Copy/

¶25

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶26

¶27

1.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Trichy Zone, Tiruchirappalli.

¶28

2.The District Registrar, District Registrar Office, Karur.

¶29

3.The Sub Registrar, Krishnarayapuram Sub Registrar Office, Karur District.

¶30

+1CC to the Special Government Pleader, SR.No.41626

¶31

+1cc to Mr.G. Sridharan, Advocate, SR.No.41565

¶32

W.P.(MD)No.12898 of 2015

¶33

24.07.2015

¶34

2P/6c AM/IV/SAR-I/05/08/2015

¶35

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

Palaniyandi v. the Deputy Inspector of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Palaniyandi v. the Deputy Inspector of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Rajendran, Vs the Districtg Revenue Officer

R. Gurusamy, Vs the Tamil Nadu Newsprint

S.R. Arul Raja Selvan, Vs Government of India

A. Sethu Vs the Director

P. Veikundasamy, Vs the District Collector

S. Karunanithi Vs the Managing Director