Partly allowed

Mr.Solai, v. The Inspector General of

Madras HC25 Oct 2017WP/10224/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner sought directions to initiate action under a withdrawn Circular No.67. The Madras High Court disposed of the petition in part, directing the District Registrar to look into and dispose of a specific representation dated 28.01.2016 despite the circular's withdrawal.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed in part without costs. The second respondent is directed to look into the representation dated 28.01.2016 and dispose of the same as early as possible after giving proper

Mr.Solai, Vs The Inspector General of — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 25.10.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE A.SELVAM and

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.KALAIYARASAN

¶6

W.P.No.10224 of 2017

¶7

MR.Solai ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Inspector General of Registration
Chennai-4
2.The District Registrar
Pudukottai District
Pudukottai
3.S.Murugan
S/o.Singaram
4.C.Mariyappan
S/o.Chinnaiyan
5.K.Subbaiah
S/o.Karuppaiah
(R3 to R5 impleaded as per order
dated 11.07.2017 in WMP.15714 of
2017 in W.P.10224 of 2017) ... Respondents

¶8

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Mandamus to issue a suitable direction directing the second respondent herein to consider petitioner consolidated representation dated 28.01.2016 and initiate action in the light of the Circular No.67 dated 03.11.2011 issued by the first respondent herein within reasonable time as prescribed by this Court.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.R.S.Anandan

¶10

For Respondents : Mr.R.Vijayakumar,

¶11

Additional Government Pleader

¶12

for R1 & R2

¶13

For Respondents : Not Ready 3 to 5

¶14

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

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

[Order of the Court was made by A.SELVAM, J.]

¶17

This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the second respondent to look into the representation dated 28.01.2016 and initiate action in the light of Circular No.67 dated 03.11.2011, by way of issuing a writ of mandamus.

¶18

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has advanced his arguments on the basis of averments made in the petition.

¶19

3.The learned Additional Government Pleader has submitted a copy of the Circular dated 20.10.2017, passed by the Government of Tamil Nadu, wherein, it has been clinchingly stated to the effect that Circular No.67 dated 03.11.2011 has already been withdrawn.

¶20

4.The main relief sought in the writ petition is to direct the second respondent, viz., the District Registrar, Pudukottai District, to consider the representation dated 28.01.2016.

¶21

5.Considering the fact that Circular No.67 dated 03.11.2011 has already been withdrawn and also considering the fact that representation dated 28.01.2016, alleged to have been given by the petitioner, has not been disposed of, this Court is inclined to pass the following order.

¶22

In fine, the writ petition is allowed in part without costs. The second respondent is directed to look into the representation dated 28.01.2016 and dispose of the same as early as possible after giving proper opportunity to the persons concerned.

¶23

Assistant Registrar(CS VI)

¶24

//True Copy//

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

gpa

¶27

¶28