Disposed

R.P.Shakkthi @ Sathish v. The Inspector General of

Madras HC19 Dec 2016WP/36145/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition under Article 226 challenging the conclusion of an inquiry under Section 83 of the Tamilnadu Registration Act without sufficient opportunity. The court directed the second respondent to pass final orders after granting a further opportunity to the petitioner, though the inquiry was already completed.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to pass final orders after giving an opportunity to the petitioner, if not already given.

R.P.Shakkthi @ Sathish Vs The Inspector… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

¶2

Dated: 19.12.2016

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Honourable Mr.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN

¶5

W.P.No.36145 of 2015 and MP Nos.1 and 2 of 2015

¶6

R.P.Shakkthi @ Sathish ..Petitioner

¶7

¶8

1 The Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome, Chennai 600 028.
2. The District Registrar (Administration),
Tirupur District, Tirupur.
3. P.Shanmugam ..Respondents

¶9

Prayer :Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus to forbear the second respondent from concluding the enquiry initiated under Section 83 of the Tamilnadu Registration Act against the petitioner in pursuant to the complaint dated 15.06.2015 lodged by the third respondent before the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.3404/A1/2015 on the file of the second respondent without giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Ethirajulu

¶11

For Respondents : Mr.S.Rajeswaran for R1 and R2 Special Government Pleader Mr.M.R.Thangavel for R3

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This petition is filed to forbear the second respondent from concluding the enquiry initiated under Section 83 of the Tamilnadu Registration Act against the petitioner in pursuant to the complaint dated 15.06.2015 lodged by the third respondent before the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.3404/A1/2015 on the

¶14

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

¶15

file of the second respondent without giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner.

¶16

2.Today when the matter is taken up, the learned counsel for the third respondent has brought to the notice of this court that the enquiry is already over in this matter and that in view of the interim order passed by this court, final order alone has not been passed.

¶17

3.Heard both sides.

¶18

4.Since the enquiry has already been completed, this court is of the view that there is no embargo for the second respondent to pass final orders, if already an opportunity is granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, since the enquiry has been completed, the second respondent is directed to pass final orders after giving an opportunity to the petitioner, if not already given.

¶19

With the above direction, the writ petition is closed. No
costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Sd/-
Asst.Registrar
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
vri
To
1 The Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome, Chennai 600 028.
2. The District Registrar (Administration),
Tirupur District, Tirupur.
+1cc to M/s.M.R.Thangavel, Advocate sr.73842
+1cc to M/s.G.Ethirajulu, Advocate sr.74676
+1cc to The Government Pleader sr.74083
W.P.No.36145/15
mp(co)
ss(1/2/2017)

¶20

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

R.P.Shakkthi @ Sathish v. The Inspector General of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.P.Shakkthi @ Sathish v. The Inspector General 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

P.R.Srinivasan, Hereditary Vs The Commissioner

M/s.Ashok Magnetics Ltd., Vs State Industries Promotion

Ms.S.Ratha Vs The Deputy Director

Sri Appukutty Chettiyar Vs The District Collector

S.Anandan, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Raja Gramani Vs The District Revenue Officer