This single-paragraph order dismissed a writ petition as infructuous because the District Registrar had already passed an order on the petitioner's representation finding no substance in the allegations against the third respondent society.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated:12.11.2019
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Writ Petition No.4704 of 2019
Mr.D.Suresh Kumar .. Petitioner /versus/
1.The Inspector General of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Mylapore, Chennai 600 028. 2.The District Registrar (Admin), North Chennai and Registrar of Societies, Office of the District Registrar, North Chennai, “Kuralagam”, Chennai 600 108.
3.”Thanikanchalam Nagar Arulmigu Muthumariamman Alaya Aanmeeka Sabha”, Rep.by Mr.S.Narayanan, No.65/6, Kamarajar Main Road, Thanikachalam Nagar, “E” Block, Ponniammanmedu, Chennai 600 110. .. Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first and second respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 31.01.2019 consequently pass appropriate orders as per law.
This writ petition has been filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first and second respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 31.01.2019 and consequently pass appropriate orders as per law.
2.The petitioner herein alleging that the third respondent-Sabha established and maintained from the contribution of the general public, is not carrying on its activity in accordance with law and not submitted its account in the General Body for more than 30 years. Hence, the same was informed to the second respondent for taking necessary action. Since no action was taken on the representation given by the petitioner, the present writ petition is filed to direct respondents 1 and 2 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 31.01.2019 and pass appropriate orders.
3.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that pursuant to the representation of the petitioner herein, enquiry was conducted and the parties were heard and after perusal of the records produced by the respective parties and the witnesses, the District Registrar has found that there is no substance to consider the representation of the petitioner to cancel the registration of the 3rd respondent and a detail order has been passed by the 2nd respondent on 30.07.2019.
4.In the light of the order passed by the 2nd respondent disposing the representation of the petitioner, nothing survives in the writ petition. Hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar ari To: 1.The Inspector General of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Mylapore, Chennai 600 028. 2.The District Registrar (Admin), North Chennai and Registrar of Societies, Office of the District Registrar, North Chennai, “Kuralagam”, Chennai 600 108. +1 cc to Government Pleader Sr.No. 94110 +1cc to Mr.N.Subramani , Advocate SR.No. 93680 W.P.No.4704 of 2019 A.SK(17/12/2019)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mr.D.Suresh Kumar
The Inspector General of Registration
The District Registrar (Admin), North Chennai and Registrar of Societies
Maraimalai M.M.A.A Sabha
G. Jayachandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
