Allowed

Lawrence Lurdusamy v. The Registrar of societies

Madras HC20 Apr 2023WP/34908/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a direction to the Registrar of Societies to inquire into allegations of mis-administration of a Club against the second respondent. The court directed the Registrar to consider the representation and pass orders on merits within eight weeks before disposing of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to consider the petitioners representation and pass orders within eight weeks.

Lawrence Lurdusamy Vs The Registrar of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

WP No.34908 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 20.04.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P. No.34908 of 2022 and W.M.P. No.11706 of 2023

¶7

Lawrence Lurdusamy ... Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

1.The Registrar of Societies, Chennai-North, Chennai – 600 001.

¶10

2.R.Balamurugan ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 25.11.2022 to conduct inquiry into the affairs of the Club and take appropriate actions against the second respondent for misadministration of the Club.

¶12

For Petitioner : Ms.S.Vennila For R1 : Mr.V.Baranidharan, Additional Government Pleader

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This petition has been filed seeking a direction to the first respondent to

¶15

consider the petitioner's representation dated 25.11.2022 to conduct inquiry https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

1/4

¶17

WP No.34908 of 2022

¶18

into the affairs of the Club and take appropriate actions against the second respondent for mis-administration of the Club.

¶19

It is the case of the petitioner that he made a representation before the

¶20

fist respondent on 25.11.2022 for taking appropriate action against the second respondent for his mis-administration and the same is not considered and hence, the present writ petition has filed.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court may

¶22

issue a direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders within the stipulated time as fixed by this Court.

¶23

The learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner's representation will be considered in terms of Section 36 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Act, within the stipulated time as fixed by this Court.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record. Since no adverse orders are passed against the second respondent and hence, notice to the second respondent is dispensed with.

¶25

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

¶26

2/4

¶27

WP No.34908 of 2022

¶28

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court directs the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 25.11.2022 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶29

With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No

¶30

costs.

¶31

20.04.2023 Index : Yes/No rli To The Registrar of Societies, Chennai-North, Chennai – 600 001.

¶32

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

3/4

WP No.34908 of 2022

M. DHANDAPANI, J

rli

W.P. No.34908 of 2022

¶38

20.04.2023

¶39

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

¶40

4/4

Lawrence Lurdusamy v. The Registrar of societies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lawrence Lurdusamy v. The Registrar of societies

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

N.S.Chandrasekaran Vs The Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.

Chinna Gounder Vs The Principal Secretary

Psa Mettur Fish Seed Sales Centre Vs The Director

Selva rajan Vs The District Collector

R.Baskaran, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Mrs. E.Vijayalakshmi Vs The Chairman cum Managing