Ajay Francis Inigo Layola v. District Registrar(Administration)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 23.11.2023

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY Ajay Francis Inigo Loyola ..

Appellant in person Vs.

1. District Registrar (Administration) Chennai Central, No.182, Bharati Salai Pycrafts Road, Royapettah Chennai - 600 014.

2. Joseph Paul

3. V.Eswaramoorthy

4. Udhayakumar 5.The Branch Manager Pubjab National Bank No.44, Taylors Road, Kilpauk Chennai - 600 010.

6. The Chief Manager Bank of India, Chennai Large Corporate Branch IV Floor, Tarapore Towers 826, Anna Salai Chennai - 600 002.

..

Respondents

Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order in W.P.No.17631 of 2022 dated 19.01.2023. Appellant in person : Mr.Ajay Francis Inigo Loyola

JUDGMENT

(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) Heard Mr.Ajay Francis Inigo Loyola, the appellant-in-person.

2. The appellant-in-person filed a writ petition seeking a direction to consider his representation, so as to renew the registration of the Sunset Terrace Owners' Association. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. The appellant-in-person has filed an instant appeal against the said judgment.

3. The appellant-in-person is an advocate, who appears in person. According to the appellant-in-person, he was not aware that the society was defunct until the counter was filed. The entire struggle of the appellant-in-person was to see that the law is abided by and the society is registered for the benefit of all the Members.

The appellant-in-person has no ulterior intention. He further submits that thereafter the appellant-in-person has also filed a rectification and one of the members has filed a suit before the Civil Civil Court for appropriate relief. The learned Single Judge has made some observations against the appellant-in-person. According to the appellant-in-person, the same be expunged.

4. We have read the judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge. In fact, the learned Single Judge has not passed any strictures against the appellant-in-person. On the contrary, observed that the appellant-in-person is an advocate; he can use his legal expertise for ensuring that the society, which is struck down, is once again brought back to life by taking steps in accordance with the provisions of law, which govern the registered societies. The learned Single Judge only observed that the writ petition was not a proper remedy for the same.

5. It may be that the appellant-in-person is not redressing his

personal grievance, however, probably was trying to revive the defunct society. According to the appellant-in-person, he bonafidely believed that the writ petition was the proper remedy. In view of that, the observations of the learned Single Judge are not to be construed as strictures. It was only to observe that the appellant-inperson ought to have taken proper steps to revive the society.

6. With these observations, the writ appeal stands disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.

(S.V.G., CJ.) (D.B.C., J.) 23.11.2023 Index : Yes/No drm

To

1. District Registrar (Administration) Chennai Central, No.182, Bharati Salai Pycrafts Road, Royapettah Chennai - 600 014.

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

(drm) 23.11.2023