Partly allowed

Mohankumar v. the District Registrar

Madras HC24 Oct 2017WP/8074/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that even though the supporting government circular was withdrawn, the District Registrar must be directed to consider and dispose of a pending representation given due notice.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition allowed in part without costs. The District Registrar directed to consider representation dated 19.08.2013 and dispose of it after giving notice to the 4th respondent.

Mohankumar Vs the District Registrar — 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 HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM

¶5

and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.KALAIYARASAN

¶7

Writ Petition No.8074 of 2014

¶8

Mohankumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Registrar
District Registrar Office
District Registrar Office Complex
Coimbatore-641 018
2.Balasubramaniam
3.Thangavel
4.Sengottian ... Respondents

¶9

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st respondent to take appropriate steps as per his representation dated 19.08.2013 in the light of circular No.67 dated 03.11.2011 in C.No.52338/C1/2011 of the Inspector General of Registration.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Gunalan

¶11

For Respondents : Mr.R.Vijayakumar, Addl.Govt.Pleader for R1 Dr.C.Ravichandran for R4 R2-served ; R3- Batta due. No appearance for R2 and R3 ORDER (Order of the Court was made by A.SELVAM,J.)

¶12

This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct the 1st respondent to take appropriate steps as per representation dated 19.08.2013 in the light of circular No.67 dated 03.11.2011 in C.No.52338/C1/2011, by way of issuing a Writ of Mandamus.

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

The learned Additional Government Pleader 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of Circular dated 20.10.2017, wherein, it is clearly stated that the Circular No.67 dated 03.11.2011 has already been withdrawn by the Government of Tamil Nadu.

¶16

Therefore, necessary direction cannot be given to take appropriate steps on the basis of Circular No.67 dated 03.11.2011. However, it is made clear that on 19.08.2013, the petitioner has given a representation to the 1^st respondent, but the same has not been considered. Under the said circumstances, this court is inclined to pass the following order:-

¶17

In fine, this Writ Petition is allowed in part without
costs. However, the 1 st respondent is directed to look into the
representation dated 19.08.2013 and dispose of the same as early
as possible, after giving due notice to the 4 th respondent.
-s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
nvsri
To
1.The District Registrar
District Registrar Office
District Registrar Office Complex
Coimbatore-641 018.
+1 CC to Mr.S.Gunalan, Advocate sr 75413.
+2 Ccs to Mr.C. Ravichandran, Advocate sr 75887.

¶18

Writ Petition No.8074 of 2014

¶19

SP(10/11/2017)

¶20

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

Mohankumar v. the District Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohankumar 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

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

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

N.Chellaperumaal Vs the Inspector General of