Partly allowed

K.Rajasekar, v. The District Registrar

Madras HC25 Oct 2017WP/39113/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner alleged delay in an enquiry. The Court was informed that the relevant Circular No.67 had been withdrawn. Despite this, the Court allowed the petition in part and directed the District Registrar to complete the enquiry within two months.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed in part; the 1st Respondent directed to complete the enquiry in Na.Ka.No.6661/A1/2015 within two months.

K.Rajasekar, Vs The District Registrar — Land Acquisition | 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

¶5

and

¶6

THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.KALAIYARASAN

¶7

W.P.No.39113 of 2016

¶8

K.Rajasekar
[ Petitioner ]
Vs
1.The District Registrar
Office of the District Registrar
Tirupur District, Tirupur
2.Palanisamy
3.Subramaniam
4.Kandhappa Gounder
5.Saraswathi
6.Subramaniam
7.Chinnasamy [Respondents]

¶9

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent herein to complete the enquiry in Na.Ka.No.6661/A1/2015 and pass orders within the stipulated time as per Circular No.67 dated 03.11.2011 issued by the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai on the basis of the petitioner's complaint dated 30.05.2016.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Padmanaban

¶11

For Respondents : Mr.R.Vijayakumar, AGP for R1 R2 to R7 served (No Vakalat)

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

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

¶14

This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the 1st respondent to complete the enquiry initiated in Na.Ka.No.6661/A1/2015 and pass

¶15

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

¶16

orders within the time stipulated as per Circular No.67 dated 03.11.2011 by way of issuing a writ of mandamus.

¶17

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

¶18

The learned Additional Government Pleader has submitted a copy of Circular dated 20.10.2017, wherein it has been clearly stated that Circular No.67 dated 03.11.2011 has already been withdrawn.

¶19

4.The main relief sought in the writ petition is to direct the first respondent to expedite the enquiry initiated in Na.Ka.No.6661/A1/2015.

¶20

5.Even though Circular No.67 dated 03.11.2011 has already
been withdrawn, this Court is inclined to pass the following
order.
6. In fine, the writ petition is allowed in part without
costs. The 1 st respondent is directed complete the enquiry
initiated in Na.Ka.No.6661/A1/2015 within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CS VI)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
The District Registrar
Office of the District Registrar
Tirupur District, Tirupur
+1 CC to Mr.T. Padmanabhan, Advocate sr 75885.
W.P.No.39113 of 2016
SR(CO)
SP(20/11/2017)

¶21

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

K.Rajasekar, v. The District Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Rajasekar, v. The District Registrar

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

J. Senthil Kumar Vs Durai Naikar

Mohankumar Vs the District Registrar

A.Manivannan Vs The Inspector General of

M.Poongoal, Vs The Inspector General of

Ellamma, Vs Inspector General of

M.Y.Habibur Rahman Vs the District Registrar (Admn.)