This order dismisses a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as infructuous because the petitioner's appeal had already been disposed of by the District Registrar before the Court finalized the decision.
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: 23.11.2020
CORAM :
The HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
W.P.No.5672 of 2017
S. Tamilselvi ... Petitioner
v. 1. The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome, Chennai – 600 028. 2. The District Registrar (Admin), South Chennai, Saidapet, Chennai – 15.
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to dispose of the petition/appeal dated 24.12.2016 (forwarded by the 1st respondent on 02.01.2017) filed by the petitioner within a reasonable time.
For Petitioner : Mr. Manikandan For Respondents : Mr. P.P. Purushothaman Govt. Advocate – R1 & R2 O R D E R
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. P.P. Purushothaman, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, submitted that the prayer sought for in the Writ Petition has become infructuous for the reason that the 2nd respondent had already disposed of the appeal dated 24.12.2016.
Assistant Registrar(CS-VI)
Sub Assistant Registrar
Page numbers
Page numbers
1 provisions across 1 enactments
S. Tamilselvi
The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome, Chennai
The District Registrar (Admin), South Chennai, Saidapet
V. Rajinikanthan
M. Duraismamy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
