Partly allowed

M.S.A.M. Mohamed Iqbal, v. the Inspector General of

Madras HC24 Oct 2017WP/18718/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition in part. It dismissed the prayer for a writ regarding a withdrawn Circular but directed the District Registrar to examine a stale petition placed before him and dismissed the miscellaneous petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed in part; the second respondent is directed to look into the petition dated 18.03.2013 as early as possible. The miscellaneous petition is dismissed.

M.S.A.M. Mohamed Iqbal, Vs the Inspector General of — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 24.10.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE A.SELVAM

¶5

and

¶6

THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.KALAIYARASAN

¶7

W.P.No.18718 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013

¶8

M.S.A.M. MOHAMED IQBAL [ PETITIONER ]

¶9

Vs 1 THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION SANTHOME CHENNAI-28.

¶10

2 THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (ADMINISTRATION) REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT ERODE DISTRICT REGISTRAR OFFICE ERODE DISTRICT.

¶11

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Second Respondent to hold enquiry and pass orders in pursuant to petition submitted on 18.3.2013 by the Petitioner in accordance with the Circular No.67 dated 03.11.2011 (C.No. 52338/C1/2011) of the first respondent as well as under Secs. 82 and 83 of the Registration Act 1908.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.H.Nazirudeen For Respondents : Mr.R.Vijayakumar, AGP

¶13

This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the 2^nd Respondent to hold enquiry in pursuance of the petition dated 18.03.2013 given by the Petitioner in accordance with the Circular No.67 dated 03.11.2011 (C.No. 52338/C1/2011) by way of issuing a writ of mandamus.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents has submitted a copy of Circular dated 20.10.2017, wherein, it is clearly stated that the Circular No.67 dated 03.11.2011 has been withdrawn by the Government of Tamil Nadu.

¶17

Considering the fact that Circular No.67 dated 03.11.2011 passed in C.No.52338/C1/2011 has already been withdrawn by the Government of Tamil Nadu on 20.10.2017, the 1^st portion of the relief sought in the writ petition has become infructuous. With regard to the 2^nd portion of the relief sought, the 2^nd respondent can be directed to look into the petition alleged to have been given by the petitioner on 18.03.2013. With the above observations, the writ petition is liable to be allowed in part.

¶18

In fine, the writ petition is allowed in part without costs. With regard to the 1^st relief sought in the writ petition, the same is dismissed. However, the 2^nd respondent, the District Registrar, is directed to look into the petition dated 18.03.2013 alleged to have been given by the petitioner, as early as possible. In view of the above, the miscellaneous petition for impleading stands dismissed.

¶19

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
/TRUE COPY/
Sub Assistant Registrar
rg
To
1 THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION
SANTHOME CHENNAI-28.

¶20

2 THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (ADMINISTRATION) REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT ERODE DISTRICT REGISTRAR OFFICE ERODE DISTRICT. +1 C.C. to M/S.P.HARI BABI Advocate SR.No. 74979 W.P.No.18718 of 2013 SKS(CO) T.R (16/11/2017)

¶21

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

M.S.A.M. Mohamed Iqbal, v. the Inspector General of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.S.A.M. Mohamed Iqbal, 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

Lakshmanan Vs Andal Ammal (Died)

N.Venkadesh Sriram Kumar Vs S.M.Lavanya

J.Alamelu, Vs R.Bakkiyam

S.Kudiyarasu Devi, Vs The Inspector General of

N.Chellaperumaal Vs the Inspector General of

M/S.Balsara Engineering Vs the District Registrar