Dismissed

Vijayakumar v. the Inspector General of Registration

Madras HC7 Jan 2022WP(MD)/301/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, sought a mandamus directing the District Registrar to conduct the election of office bearers for the Kovilpatti Nadar Uravinmurai Sangam and the police to provide protection. The High Court dismissed the petition as it was inclined to grant no such order, instructing parties to resolve issues amongst themselves.

What did the court decide?

Direction to District Registrar to conduct election and police to provide protection was denied; petitioner directed to resolve issues with respondents.

Vijayakumar Vs the Inspector General of Registration — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.301 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 07.01.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.301 of 2022 and W.M.P(MD)No.254 of 2022

¶7

Vijayakumar ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Inspector General of Registration, O/o. the Inspector General of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Mandaiveli, Chennai-600 028.

¶10

2.The District Registrar, O/o. the District Registrar, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.

¶11

3.The President, Kovilpatti Nadar Uravinmurai Sangam, Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District.

¶12

4.The Secretary, Kovilpatti Nadar Uravinmurai Sangam, Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District.

¶13

5.The Inspector of Police, Kovilpatti East Police Station, Tuticorin District. ... Respondents

¶14

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, by directing the second respondent to conduct the election of the Office Bearers of the Kovilpatti Nadar Uravinmurai Sangam (Registration No.23/1995) in accordance with provision of the Tamil Nadu Society Registration Act, 1975 and consequently direct the fifth respondent to provide adequate Police Protection for the above said Election within the time as fixed by this Court.

¶15

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

¶16

1/3

¶17

W.P.(MD).No.301 of 2022

¶18

For Petitioner

¶19

: Mr.Sricharan Rangarajan

¶20

for Mr.V.Malaiyendran

¶21

For R-1, R-2 and R-5 : Mr.J.John Rajadurai, Government Advocate.

¶22

For R-3 and R-4 : Mr.C.Mayilvahana Rajendran

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The Writ Petition has been filed only to make an endeavour to ensure that some sort of litigation has been initiated. This Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of Mandamus seeking a direction to the second respondent to conduct the election of the Office Bearers of the Kovilpatti Nadar Uravinmurai Sangam and also a direction to the fifth respondent to provide adequate police protection for the aforesaid election.

¶25

The President and the Secretary of the said Sangam are shown as the third and fourth respondents. The petitioner who I presume is a member had sent a representation that the General Body Meeting where the Office Bearers would have to be elected should be supervised or an observer must be placed in position.

¶26

I am not inclined to grant any such order.

¶27

Mr.J.John Rajadurai, learned Government Advocate, takes notice on behalf of respondents 1, 2 and 5. Even without issuing notice, there has been representation on behalf of respondents 3 and 4 by Mr.Mayilvagana Rajendran, learned counsel. Let the parties resolve the issues by themselves, since it is stated that the third and the fourth respondents have no objections in conducting a General Body Meeting.

¶28

With the said observations, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.

¶29

Assistant Registrar (CS-II)

¶30

// True Copy //

¶31

/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶32

Nsr

¶33

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

¶34

2/3

¶35

W.P.(MD).No.301 of 2022

¶36

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶37

¶38

1.The Inspector General of Registration, O/o. the Inspector General of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Mandaiveli, Chennai-600 028. 2.The District Registrar, O/o. the District Registrar, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.

¶39

3.The Inspector of Police, Kovilpatti East Police Station, Tuticorin District.

¶40

+1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-995[F] dated 10/01/2022 )

¶41

W.P.(MD).No.301 of 2022 07.01.2022

¶42

RK(01/02/2022) 3P 5C

¶43

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

¶44

3/3

Vijayakumar v. the Inspector General of Registration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijayakumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muthupandi.T Vs the District Collector

Mariammal. S Vs the District Collector

Ramaiah.S Vs the District Collector

Shanmugam. S Vs the Tahsildar

P.Jeyabalan Vs the District Collector

Seranthayen Vs the District Registrar , ( Registration Department )