← Library
Madras High CourtWP/30569/2012disposed of

P.Subramanian, v. The Inspector General Of

2019-12-16Honourable Mr Justice Abdul Quddhose2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 16.12.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE W.P.No.30569 of 2012 1.P.Subramanian 2.P.Duraisamy 3.Santhamani ...

Petitioners Vs.

1.The Inspector General of Registration, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004.

2.The District Registrar, O/o.The District Registrar Office, Tirupur, Tirupur District.

...

Respondents Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for writ of Mandamus direct the 2nd Respondent to complete the enquiry in proceedings Na.Ka.3560/A1/2012, dated 29.06.2012, issued by 2nd Respondent within the time limit fixed by the Hon'ble Court. For Petitioner : Mr.Sheikh Mohammed Rafiq for P.V.S.Giridhar and Sai For Respondents : Mr.P.P.Purushothaman Government Advocate for Registration

ORDER

The writ petitions have been filed seeking for a writ of mandamus to direct the 2nd Respondent to complete the enquiry in proceedings Na.Ka.3560/A1/2012, dated 29.06.2012 issued by the 2nd Respondent within the time framed to be fixed by this Court. 2.The petitioners have given a representation that the document dated 13.06.1996 registered as document No.2627/1996 is a forged document. Therefore, the first petitioner has made an application to the second respondent on 14.06.2012 requesting the second respondent to cancel the alleged forged document Nos.2627/1996, 4081/2004, 4082/2004, 6328/2007 and 6329/2007. Notice on enquiry in the said application dated 14.06.2012 earlier sent by the second respondent to all the persons 1/2 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

concerned on 29.06.2012 in the proceedings of the second respondent No.Na.Ka.3560/AA1/12. However, it is the case of the petitioners that for the past five months, the second respondent periodically kept adjourning the same although the petitioners participated in the enquiry. Admittedly, till date, the enquiry has not been completed by the second respondent. 3.The learned Government Advocate for the respondents on an instructions would submit that the second respondent is directed to complete the enquiry within the time framed to be fixed by this Court.

4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 5.Recording the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate, this Court directs the second respondent to complete the enquiry in proceedings Na.Ka.3560/A1/2012 within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order.

6.With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar sms To 1.The Inspector General of Registration, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004.

2.The District Registrar, O/o.The District Registrar Office, Tirupur, Tirupur District.

+1cc to P.V.S.Giridhar and Sai, Advocate sr.104563 W.P.No.30569 of 2012 ln(co) nr 17/02/2020 2/2 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/