Dismissed

A.T.Mathiyalagan, v. the Registrar of Societies

Madras HC25 Feb 2016WP(MD)/2575/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, Madras Bench dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash an election order on the bench of Justice B. Rajendran. The court directed the petitioner to contest the election via the pending civil suit, holding such challenges are no longer maintainable via writ.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition closed; petitioner directed to implead in pending civil suit or file fresh suit.

A.T.Mathiyalagan, Vs the Registrar of Societies — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 25.02.2016 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN W.P.(MD)No.2575 of 2016 and M.P.(MD).Nos.2279 and 2280 of 2016

¶3

A.T.Mathiyalagan ... Petitioner Vs.

¶4

The Registrar of Societies, Palace Road, Madurai.

¶5

K.Pudur Thozil Varthaga Sangam, represented by its President, M/s. A.Fathimaraj.

¶6

K.Pudur Thozlil Varthaga Sangam, represented by its Secretary, M/s. Suviseshaganpavul.

¶7

A.Jahangir Badusha, Election Officer,

¶8

K.Pudur Thozlil Varthaga Sangam. ... Respondents

¶9

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the fourth respondent dated 03.01.2016 and quash the same and consequently, direct the first respondent to direct the fourth respondent to conduct fresh election according to the bye law of the Sangam.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Vijayarathinam

¶11

For Respondents : Mr.B.Saravanan

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

The Writ Petition has been filed for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the fourth respondent dated 03.01.2016 and quash the same and consequently, direct the first respondent to direct the fourth respondent to conduct fresh election according to the bye law of the Sangam.

¶14

After some elaborate arguments, the learned counsel for the respondents produced the Original Special General Body Meeting Minutes Book, wherein the signature of the petitioner is also incorporated.

¶15

Without going to all other merits and without making any opinion, it is simply stated that once the election is over, it can be challenged only by way of a suit. In fact, already a civil suit is pending in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O.S.No.717 of 2015 before the District Munsif Court, Madurai Town. Hence, the petitioner is at liberty either to implead himself as a party and contest the very election itself or the petitioner is at liberty to

¶16

¶17

file a fresh suit on the same cause of action raising all the pleas raised in the writ petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶18

Sd/

¶19

Assistant Registrar(CO)I/C

¶20

/TRUE COPY/

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar(C.S) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶22

¶23

1	The Registrar of Societies, Palace Road, Madurai.
2	The District Munsif, Madurai Town.
+1cc	to M/S.B.Saravanan, Advocate in SR.No.10794
+1cc	to Special Government Pleader in SR.No.11282
+1cc	to M/S.M.Vijayarathinam, Advocate in SR.No.11344

¶24

W.P.(MD)No.2575 of 2016 25.02.2016

¶25

akv PA/SK-SKN/SAR I/29.02.2016/2P/6C

¶26

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

A.T.Mathiyalagan, v. the Registrar of Societies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.T.Mathiyalagan, v. the Registrar of Societies

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

N. Ukkirapandiyan Vs the General Manager

N.Mariappan, S/O.S.Nainar Vs the Superintending Engineer

R.Kannan, Vs the Branch Manager

A.Ravi, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

M.Maruthamuthu Vs the District Collector

M. Prabhakaran Vs the District Collector