Disposed

St.Marys Jacobite Syrian v. Inspector General of

Madras HC11 Oct 2018WP/22736/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of this writ petition by directing the Inspector General of Registration to consider the petitioner's appeal on merits and pass orders within eight weeks, ensuring all parties have ample opportunity to be heard.

What did the court decide?

Directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner's appeal dated 09.08.2010 and pass orders on merits with ample opportunity to parties within eight weeks.

St.Marys Jacobite Syrian Vs Inspector General of — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 11.10.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM

¶5

W.P. No.22736 of 2011

¶6

St.Mary's Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church,
Jacobite Syrian Christian Association,
Represented by its Secretary, K.K.Merrish,
Puthu Thottam 1st Street, Kannappa Nagar,
Nallampalayam Road, Rathinapuri Post,
Coimbatore - 641 027. .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
No.100, Santhome High Road,
Santhome, Chennai - 28.
2.The District Registrar of Chits and Societies,
Coimbatore District,
Coimbatore.
3.Jacobite Syrian Christian Association,
A registered Society (No.166 of 2009),
Represented by its Secretary, P.I.Verghese,
Site No.1,2,3,4 of S.F.No.120 and 121,
Sanganur Village, Puthu Thottam I Street,
Sanganur, Rathinapuri, Coimbatore - 641 027. .. Respondents

¶7

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the first respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner on 09.08.2010 contained in File No.42695/I-1/10 on merits and as per the provisions of law.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Jenasenan

¶9

For Respondents : Mr.P.P.Purushothaman Government Advocate for R1 & R2 Mr.R.Bharath Kumar for R3

¶10

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

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

Heard Mr.A.Jenasenan, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr.P.P.Purushothaman, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 and 2; Mr.R.Bharath Kumar, learned counsel for the third respondent and perused the materials available on record.

¶13

This Writ Petition has been filed for a direction to the first respondent to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner dated 09.08.2010 in File No.42695/I-1/10.

¶14

The learned Government Advocate, on instructions from the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that due to pendency of the Writ Petition, the appeal has not yet been disposed of by the first respondent and if a direction is given, the first respondent is ready to pass orders on the appeal by the petitioner.

¶15

In the light of the limited scope of the prayer sought for the in the Writ Petition and the submissions of the learned Government Advocate, this Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the first respondent to consider the appeal of the petitioner dated 09.08.2010 and pass orders purely on merits and in accordance with law, after providing ample opportunity to all necessary parties within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶16

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There is no order as to costs.

¶17

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS IX)

¶18

//True Copy//

¶19

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶20

rns

¶21

¶22

1.The Inspector General of Registration, Government of Tamil Nadu, No.100, Santhome High Road, Santhome, Chennai - 28.

¶23

2.The District Registrar of Chits and Societies, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.

¶24

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

¶25

+1cc to Mr.R.Bharath Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No.71306 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.71465

¶26

W.P. No.22736 of 2011

¶27

rrs 12/11/2018

¶28

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

St.Marys Jacobite Syrian v. Inspector General of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

St.Marys Jacobite Syrian v. 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

M.Murugesan, Vs the Executive Officer

G. Karunamoorthy Vs the Inspector General of

G.Manivel, Vs the Tamil Nadu Electricity

Dr.R.Selvaraj Vs the Agricultural Production

K.v.K.Somasundaram Vs the Secretary

C.Sellamuthu Vs the Secretary to Government