Allowed

Ram Anand.R v. the Inspector General of Registration

Madras HC10 Mar 2021WP(MD)/879/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allowed a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court directed the third respondent to conduct an enquiry by issuing summons to interested parties regarding a forwarded complaint and pass orders within eight weeks, distinguishing similar recent court decisions.

What did the court decide?

The third respondent directed to conduct enquiry by issuing summons to interested parties and pass appropriate orders within 8 weeks.

Ram Anand.R Vs the Inspector General of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.879 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Reserved on : 22.02.2021

¶4

Pronounced on : 10.03.2021

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN

¶7

W.P.(MD) No.879 of 2021

¶8

R.Ram Anand ... Petitioner

¶9

-vs-

¶10

1.The Inspector General of Registration, No.110, Santhome High Road,

¶11

Chennai - 28.

¶12

2.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration cum District Registrar (Administration), Tirunelveli.

¶13

3.The District Registrar (Administration), Tenkasi, Tenkasi District. ... Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the third respondent to conduct enquiry by issuing summon to all the interested parties and pass orders on the complaint forwarded to him by the second respondent through the communication made in Na.Ka.No.4225/E2/20, dated 30.09.2020 by following the circular issued by the first respondent in Letter No.14530/U1/2017, dated 08.11.2017 within the stipulated time.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Venkatesh For Respondents : Mr.K.Sathiyasingh Additional Government Pleader

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This Writ Petition is filed to direct the third respondent to conduct enquiry by issuing summon to all the interested parties and pass orders on the complaint forwarded to him by the second respondent through the communication made in Na.Ka.No.4225/E2/20, dated 30.09.2020 by following the circular issued by the first respondent in Letter No.14530/U1/2017, dated 08.11.2017 within the stipulated time.

¶18

2.When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that even very recently this Court has disposed of similar Writ Petitions with certain directions. The https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ learned Counsel for the petitioner would refer to the decision of

¶19

1/3

¶20

W.P.(MD) No.879 of 2021

¶21

this Court rendered in W.P.(MD)No.18952 of 2020 dated 19.02.2021. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would specifically draw the attention of this Court to paragraphs 2 and 3 in the order which are extracted hereunder:

¶22

“2.When the matter is taken up for hearing, Mr.K.Sathiya Singh, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that the respondent department has issued a circular, dated 09.11.2018, as to the position to be followed in the matter of fraudulent registration. He would further submit that necessary action will be taken in terms of circular, dated 09.11.2018 and also further circulars issued by the respondent department.

¶23

3.In view of the above submission, the writ petition stands disposed of with the directions as under:-

¶24

i) The 1^st respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 19.09.2019 and take a decision on the same in terms of circular dated 09.11.2018.

¶25

ii) The 1^st respondent is also directed to pass appropriate orders in this regard within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” Therefore, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would pray for similar orders to be passed in this Writ Petition as well.

¶26

3.Mr.K.Sathiya Singh, learned Additional Government Pleader would not quarrel with the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and would, in fact, fairly concede as to the issue raised in the Writ Petition.

¶27

4.In view of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of with the directions as under:-

¶28

i) The third respondent is directed to conduct enquiry by issuing summon to all the interested parties and take a decision on the complaint forwarded to him by the second respondent through the communication dated 30.09.2020 in terms of circular dated 09.11.2018.

¶29

ii) The third respondent is also directed to pass appropriate orders in this regard within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” No costs.

¶30

Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶31

// True Copy //

¶32

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶33

SRM

¶34

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

¶35

2/3

¶36

W.P.(MD) No.879 of 2021

¶37

¶38

1.The Inspector General of Registration, No.110, Santhome High Road, Chennai - 28.

¶39

2.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration cum District Registrar (Administration), Tirunelveli.

¶40

3.The District Registrar (Administration), Tenkasi, Tenkasi District.

¶41

+1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-10541[F] dated 11/03/2021 )

¶42

W.P.(MD) No.879 of 2021 10.03.2021

¶43

MJ(CO) TR(01.04.2021) 3P 5C

¶44

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

¶45

3/3

Ram Anand.R v. the Inspector General of Registration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Anand.R v. the Inspector General of Registration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nallammal.P Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Gopalakrishnan.N Vs the Revenue Divsional Officer

Sabar Nisha.a Vs Noorjahan Begam.M

Abdul Jabbar. M.R Vs The Inspector General of Registration

Gunasekaran Vs the Sub Registrar

Andiyappan Vs the Tahsildar