Mrs.Mangalam v. The Inspector General Of
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 25.10.2017
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE A.SELVAM and THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.KALAIYARASAN W.P.No.24337 of 2015 Mangalam [ Petitioner ] W/o.D.Nagarajan Rep. by her power Agent D.Nagarajan S/o.Ramasami Iyer 81/5 Metro Flats 3rd Street Kamdar Nagar Chennai - 600 034 Vs 1 The Inspector General of Registration Office of the I.G.Of Registration No.100 Santhome High Road Chennai-28 2 The District Registrar (Administration) (Deputy Inspector of General grade) Sydapet - South Chennai Chennai - 15 3 The Sub Registrar - Joint II Office of the Sub-Registrar Sydapet Chennai - 15 4 The Sub Registrar Office of the Sub-Registrar Virugampakam Chennai-92 [Respondents] Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the Respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate action over the complaint dated 26.11.2012 made by the petitioner as per relevant rules and also as per the mandatory procedure laid down in Circular no.67 dated 03.11.2011 issued by the 1st respondent and conclude the proceedings within a time frame that may be fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Thilageswaran For Respondents : Mr.R.Vijayakumar, AGP
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by A.SELVAM, J.] This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate action on the basis of the complaint dated 26.11.2012 alleged to have been given by the petitioner as per relevant rules and also as per the mandatory procedure laid down in Circular No.67 dated 03.11.2011, by way of issuing a writ of mandamus.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended to the effect that in pursuance of the complaint dated 26.11.2012, proper action has been taken by the 2nd respondent and he sent all the proceedings to the 1st respondent, but, the 1st respondent has not taken appropriate action.
3. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents has submitted a copy of Circular dated 20.10.2017, wherein, it is clearly stated that the Circular No.67 dated 03.11.2011 has been withdrawn by the Government of Tamil Nadu.
4. The main grievance expressed on the side of the petitioner is that in pursuance of the complaint, the 2nd respondent has taken appropriate action, but the 1st respondent has not taken proper action so far.
5. Considering the representation made on the side of the petitioner and also considering the fact that Circular No.67 dated 03.11.2011 has already been withdrawn subsequently on 20.10.2017, this Court is inclined to pass the following order.
6. In fine, the writ petition is allowed in part without costs. The 1st respondent is directed to take appropriate action on the basis of the alleged recommendation made by the 2nd respondent as early as possible.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-V) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar
rg To 1 The Inspector General of Registration Office of the I.G.Of Registration No.100 Santhom High Road Chennai-28 2 The District Registrar (Administration) (Deputy Inspector of General grade) Sydapet - South Chennai Chennai - 15 3 The Sub Registrar - Joint II Office of the Sub-Registrar Sydapet Chennai - 15 4 The Sub Registrar Office of the Sub-Registrar Virugampakam Chennai-92 +1cc to Mr.K.Thilageswaran Advocate, S.R.No. 75783 W.P.No.24337 of 2015 TR(17/11/2017)