Dismissed

K.Rajalakshmi, v. the Inspector General of

Madras HC5 Jun 2023WP/17975/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking a Writ of Certiorari. The court observed that civil suits were pending, allowing parties to defend their cases in court and approach competent authorities for grievances later. The petition was disposed of without costs.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of without costs; connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

K.Rajalakshmi, Vs the Inspector General of — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.17975 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 05.06.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

W.P.No.17975 of 2013 and

¶7

M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2013

K.Rajalakshmi

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Inspector General of Registration Santhome High Road Chennai.

¶12

2.The District Registrar (Administration) Registration Department Tiruppur.

¶13

3.S.Eswaran ... Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings dated 29.04.2013 passed in Na.Ka.No.5151/B1/2012 on the file of the 2 nd respondent herein, quash the same.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.Sriram For Mr.K.Govi Ganesan For R1 & R2 : Mr.D.Ravichander

¶16

Page 1 of 4

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

W.P.No.17975 of 2013

¶19

Special Government Pleader For R3 : Mr.Ma.Pa.Thangavel

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The order passed by the 2^nd respondent in proceedings dated

¶22

29.04.2013 refusing to conduct an enquiry into the complaint filed by the 3^rd respondent is under challenge in the present writ petition.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the parties have instituted a Civil Suit in O.S.No.21 of 2011, which is now pending. The order impugned passed by the 2^nd respondent pursuant to the Government order was also withdrawn, there is no impediment for conducting an enquiry based on the complaint. The Civil Suits are now pending before the Competent Court of Law.

¶24

That being the factum, the parties are at liberty to defend their

¶25

respective cases before the Competent Court in the Suit instituted and if any grievances exists thereafter, they are at liberty to approach the Competent Court in the manner known to law.

¶26

Page 2 of 4

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

W.P.No.17975 of 2013

¶29

costs.

¶30

4. With these observations, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No

¶31

costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

05.06.2023

(2/2)

Jeni

Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes / No

¶36

¶37

1.The Inspector General of Registration Santhome High Road Chennai.

¶38

2.The District Registrar (Administration) Registration Department Tiruppur.

¶39

Page 3 of 4

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

W.P.No.17975 of 2013

¶42

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

¶43

Jeni

¶44

W.P.No.17975 of 2013

¶45

05.06.2023 (2/2)

¶46

Page 4 of 4

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

K.Rajalakshmi, v. the Inspector General of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Rajalakshmi, v. the Inspector General of

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

A.S.a.Gangatharan Vs Sathya Priya

M/s.Manipal Utility Packaging solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Inspector General of Registration

Mr.a.Esaikimuthu, Vs Inspector General of Registration

S.Alagammai Vs the State

M.Dhanapal Vs the Secretary

Mr. v.Jaishankar, Vs the District Registrar