Dismissed

R.Suresh Kumar v. the Tahsildar

Madras HC27 Nov 2024WP/35015/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Members of a producers' association sought mandamus directing the Tahsildar to consider their representation and open the association premises, locked during office-bearer disputes. The court held the Tahsildar has no role in such internal association disputes and dismissed the writ petition, granting liberty to approach the civil court.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioners to work out their remedy before the Civil Court; no costs.

R.Suresh Kumar Vs the Tahsildar — Cooperative Societies | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.35015 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated 27.11.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

¶6

W.P.No.35015 of 2024

¶7

R.Suresh Kumar

¶8

M.Gopinath

¶9

Jayabalan Chinnathamni

¶10

Dhanasekar Jayavelu

¶11

Elumalai

¶12

Selvaraj

¶13

A.Thirukkumar

¶14

... Petitioners

¶15

Vs.

¶16

1.The Tahsildar, Office of Mambalam Taluk, Chennai 600 078.

¶17

2.Film and Television Producers Guild, Rep by its Secretary M.Jambu B1, Rams Flat, New No.19 (Old No.5) Jagatheeswaran Street, T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017.

¶18

3.Dr.Jaguar Thangam, President, Film and Television Producers, Guild of South India, B1, Rams Flat, New No.19 (Old No.5) Jagatheeswaran Street, T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017. ... Respondents

¶19

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

¶20

Page 1 of 5

¶21

W.P.No.35015 of 2024

¶22

Prayer:

¶23

Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent Tahsildar, Mambalam Taluk, Chennai to consider the Representation dated 23.09.2024 given by the petitioners to open the association building and enable the members to use the association premises.

¶24

For Petitioners : Mr.K.M.Balaji For Respondents : Mr.V.Ramesh, Government Advocate for the first respondent

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The petitioners herein seek a direction to the first respondent to

¶27

consider their representation dated 23.09.2024 and open the Association premises.

¶28

It is the case of the petitioners that they are members of the

¶29

Film and Television Producers Guild of South India. Earlier, there was a dispute among the Office Bearers of the second respondent Association. The Secretary of the Association has filed a suit in C.S.No.512 of of 2018, in which order was passed. Challenging the

¶30

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

¶31

Page 2 of 5

¶32

W.P.No.35015 of 2024

¶33

said order, the third respondent filed an appeal in OSA No.371 of 2018 before this Court. In the said appeal, this Court was pleased to appoint Former Judge of this Court to conduct the Election in the second respondent Association. Subsequently, the third respondent has approached this court and obtained an order for opening the Association premises. Pursuant to the said direction, the Association Premises was opened and again there was a dispute among the Office Bearers. It is also the case of the petitioners that the Office Bearers of the Association locked the Association premises and prevented the members from entering into the Association premises. Therefore, the petitioners submitted their representation before the first respondent seeking direction to the Office Bearers to open the Association premises, however, the same was not considered by the first respondent. Therefore, the petitioners have come before this Court.

¶34

A reading of the writ affidavit would disclose that there is a

¶35

dispute among the members of the Association and its office bearers with regard to the opening of the Association premises. The first

¶36

respondent has no role to play in the said dispute among the members

¶37

Page 3 of 5

¶38

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

¶39

W.P.No.35015 of 2024

¶40

of the Association and it is for the aggrieved members to workout their remedy before the Civil Court. As such, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to work out their remedy before the Civil Court.

¶41

With the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed.

¶42

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶43

27.11.2024

¶44

Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No mst

¶45

¶46

1.The Tahsildar, Office of Mambalam Taluk, Chennai 600 078.

¶47

2.Film and Television Producers Guild, Rep by its Secretary M.Jambu B1, Rams Flat, New No.19 (Old No.5) Jagatheeswaran Street, T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017.

¶48

3.Dr.Jaguar Thangam, President, Film and Television Producers, Guild of South India, B1, Rams Flat, New No.19 (Old No.5) Jagatheeswaran Street, T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017.

¶49

Page 4 of 5

¶50

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

¶51

W.P.No.35015 of 2024

¶52

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

¶53

mst

¶54

W.P.No.35015 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.37969 of 2024

¶55

27.11.2024

¶56

Page 5 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

R.Suresh Kumar v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Suresh Kumar v. the Tahsildar

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

M.Settu Vs the Superintending Engineer

A.Venkatesan Vs the Commissioner

Jayanthi Pai Vs the Commissioners

M/S.Sri Ponguru Magnesite Mines, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Vupputur Ramesh, Vs The Commissioner

S.Shanmugam Vs the District Collector