Dismissed

Muthulakshmanan.M v. the District Registrar

Madras HC8 Mar 2021WP(MD)/4691/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court dismissed a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a Mandamus to direct the Societies Registrar to consider a representation. The Court held the affidavit was speculative, sketchy, and bereft of basic details, providing no legal basis for intervention.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was dismissed. No costs.

Muthulakshmanan.M Vs the District… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.4691 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.03.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN W.P.(MD)No.4691 of 2021

¶5

M.Muthulakshmanan : Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The District Registrar, Office of the Societies Registration, District Registrar Office, Muthuoorani, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District. : Respondent

¶8

PRAYER :- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent to consider the petitioner/s representation dated 04.01.2021 and pass suitable orders in accordance with law within the period that may be stipulated by this Court.

¶9

For Petitioner :Mr.A.Nawaz Khan For Respondent :Mr.K.Sathiya Singh Special Government Pleader

¶10

ORDER

¶11

The petitioner claims himself to be a member of one Singampuanari Vanigar Nalasangam. According to him, the Sangam became defunct in the year 2009. According to him, some persons, who were not connected with the Sangam, have created forged documents and approached the respondent for renewal of the registration of the Sangam. According to him that those persons, who forged the documents, have got the Sangam in Reg.No.15 of 1976 renewed. In that regard, he had submitted a representation on 14.01.2021 to the respondent seeking documents relating to renewal of the Sangem by third parties. Since no action was forthcoming, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶12

2.The affidavit in its entirety contains only the above facts and this Court, in the absence of any details, is not able to come to any conclusion, as to the legal case projected in this Writ Petition. The averments in the affidavit are too sketchy and bald and bereft of any basic details, as to the nature of petitioner's interest in the Sangam as on date, how the documents were forged by some third parties, what were the documents, that were forged and how the registration number of the Sangam came to be restored etc. Nothing has been stated in the affidavit, except a bald statement, which cannot be the basis, on which this Court can act and issue a Writ of Mandamus. Considering the affidavit, this case appears to be a speculative litigation and the affidavit has been so carelessly https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and casually drafted, which ought not to be entertained even for a

¶13

1/2

¶14

W.P.(MD)No.4691 of 2021

¶15

second by this Court.

¶16

3.For the above stated reasons, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.

¶17

Sd/-

¶18

Assistant Registrar (CS-I)

¶19

// True Copy //

¶20

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶21

¶22

The District Registrar, Office of the Societies Registration, District Registrar Office, Muthuoorani, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.

¶23

+1 CC to M/s.Additional GP ( SR-9673[F] dated 09/03/2021 ) +1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-9689[F] dated 09/03/2021 )

¶24

W.P.(MD)No.4691 of 2021 08.03.2021

¶25

VR(CO) KB(07.04.2021) 2P 4C

¶26

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

¶27

2/2

Muthulakshmanan.M v. the District Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muthulakshmanan.M 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

Jeyabalan.S Vs the Prl.Secretary and Commissioner

Lakshmi.S Vs the District Collector

V.Karuppu Vs T.Anbalagan

Muniyasamy.S Vs the Chairman

S.Seeralan Vs Jothi Nirmala Periyasamy

Kamaiye Vs the Dist Collector