Madras High CourtWP(MD)/13942/2019disposed of

Kremmer Sandegren Foundation v. The Inspector General Of

2019-06-21Honourable Mr Justice R. Suresh Kumar5 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.06.2019

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR W.P.(MD)No.13942 of 2019 Kremmer Sandegren Foundation Pattukkottai, Rep.By its President, D.Abrahamdass, ... Petitioner -Vs1. The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome, Chennai.

2. The District Registrar, Chennai.

3. The District Registrar, Kancheepuram.

4. The District Registrar, Villuppuram.

5. The District Registrar, Thiruvannamalai.

6. The District Registrar, Cudalore

7. The District Registrar, Trichy.

8. The District Registrar, Perambalur.

9. The District Registrar, Madurai

10. The District Registrar, Tirunelveli

11. The District Registrar, Dindigul.

12. The District Registrar, Kanyakumari.

13. The District Registrar, Tuticorin.

14. The District Registrar, Ramanathapuram.

15. The District Registrar, Tanjore

16. The District Registrar, Sivagangai.

17. The District Registrar, Tirupur.

18. The District Registrar, Coimbatore.

... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition - filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation objections dated 25.03.2019 submitted to the respondents and pass appropriate orders thereby providing the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing within a time frame as fixed by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.B.Prahalad Ravi For Respondents : Mr.M.Murugan, GA,

ORDER

The prayer in this writ petition is for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation/objections dated 25.03.2019 submitted to the respondents and pass appropriate orders thereby providing the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing within a time frame as fixed by this Court.

2.Heard Mr.B.Prahalad Ravi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.Murugan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

3.The petitioner Trust has given a representation on 25.03.2019 to the respondents, especially the 1st respondent, i.e., the Inspector General of Registration, to take into account their objection regarding the expected fraudulent registration, if any, comes from any of the parties in any of the jurisdiction of the respondents District Registrars, of the property of the petitioner Trust and in this regard, it is the plea of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, if the said representation is considered and an order to that effect is passed giving suitable direction to the District Registrars concerned by the 1st respondent, the petitioner would be satisfied. 4.

I have heard the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, who would submit that, since all the District Registrars have been arrayed as party herein and that the representation also has been given to all the District Registrars, after getting input from them, a decision has to be taken by the 1st respondent and therefore, it will take sometime. Considering the said aspect, if this Court wants a direction to be given to the 1st respondent to pass orders on the representation of the petitioner, that would be complied with as early as possible by the 1st respondent.

5.Considering the said submission made by both sides, with the consent of both the parties, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself, with the following direction: "The 1st respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 25.03.2019 and take a decision, on merits and in accordance with law, thereon, as expeditious as possible and communicate the same to the petitioner."

6.With this direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-II) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS ) Arul To

1. The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome, Chennai.