Disposed

A. Thandapani, v. the Inspector General

Madras HC24 Jul 2015WP(MD)/12911/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge of the Madras High Court issued a Writ of Mandamus directing the District Registrar, Dindigul, to dispose of the petitioner's representation regarding document cancellation within three months, affording an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation within three months after affording an opportunity of hearing.

A. Thandapani, Vs the Inspector General — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 24.07.2015

¶3

C O R A M

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶5

Writ Petition (MD) No.12911 of 2015

¶6

A.Thandapani ... Petitioner

¶7

¶8

1.The Inspector General of Registration, 80, Santhom Highways Road, Chennai.

¶9

2.The District Registrar, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

¶10

3.The Sub-Registrar, (Joint-II), Sub Registrar Office, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

¶11

... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER:Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 22.03.2015 to cancel the document in Document No.5873 of 12 & 5874 of 2012 on the file of the third respondent based on the circular No.67 dated 03.11.2011 issued by the first respondent.

¶13

For Petitioner ... Mr.M.Senthil Kumar For Respondents ... Mr.T.R.Janarthanam Additional Government Pleader

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

This Writ Petition has been filed, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 22.03.2015 to cancel the document in Document No.5873 of 12 & 5874 of 2012 on the file of the third respondent based on the circular No.67 dated 03.11.2011 issued by the first respondent.

¶16

2.MrT.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.

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that it would suffice if the representation of the

¶18

¶19

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 second respondent is directed to dispose of the representation of the petitioner, dated 22.03.2015, 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 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 Party/Parties. The persons, who are likely to be affected are also to be heard before any final decision is be taken.

¶21

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

¶22

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO) /True copy/

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

ssl To 1.The Inspector General of Registration, 80, Santhom Highways Road, Chennai.

¶25

2.The District Registrar, Dindigul District, Dindigul. 3.The Sub-Registrar, (Joint-II), Sub Registrar Office, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

¶26

+1cc to Mr.C.M.Ganesan,Advocate in sr No.41785 +1cc to Special Government Pleader in Sr NO.41627

¶27

Writ Petition (MD) No.12911 of 2015 24.07.2015

¶28

rg.29.07.2015 2p/6c

¶29

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

A. Thandapani, v. the Inspector General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A. Thandapani, v. the Inspector General

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

All orders in this case

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

Palaniyandi Vs the Deputy Inspector of