← Library
Madras High CourtWP(MD)/15630/2017dismissed

R.Rajendran v. The Inspector General Of

2017-08-21Honourable Mr Justice K. Kalyanasundaram3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 21.08.2017

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM W.P.(MD)No.15630 of 2017 R.Rajendran ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Inspector General of Registration, Registration Department, No.100, Santhome High Road, Chennai.

2. The District Registrar, Registration Department, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

3. The Sub Registrar, Office of the Sub Registrar, No.I, Joint Sub Registrar, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

4.G.Geetharamani

...Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's representation dated 16.08.2017 within a stipulated time. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Saravanan For R1 to R3 : Mr.C.Selvaraj Special Government Pleader

ORDER

The petitioner seeks for a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on the representation of the petitioner, dated 16.08.2017.

2.According to the petitioner, the 4th respondent had executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of the petitioner on 29.10.2014 relating to the property situated in Old T.S.No.1658/3D, New T.S.No.84 and 97 of 6th Ward, Block No.66, Dindigul Town. Based on the Power of Attorney, he entered in an agreement with one R.Thavamani. While so, the principal, the 4th respondent herein unilaterally cancelled the Power of Attorney. Hence, the petitioner made a representation to the second respondent on 16.08.2017. Since no action was taken, the present writ petition.

3.Heard Mr.A.Saravanan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.C.Selvaraj, learned Special Government Pleader who took notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3, and perused the records.

4.According to the petitioner, the 4th respondent, who is the owner of the property in T.S.No.84 and 97, has executed the General Power of Attorney in favour of the petitioner, but without notice it was cancelled.

5.It is the settled law that the principal has got every right to cancel the Power of Attorney without any notice at any point of time. If the petitioner is aggrieved over the same, he has to approach the civil Court. Hence, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to relief sought for in this writ petitioner.

6.Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AD-II) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To

1. The Inspector General of Registration, Registration Department, No.100, Santhome High Road, Chennai.

2. The District Registrar, Registration Department, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

3. The Sub Registrar, Office of the Sub Registrar, No.I, Joint Sub Registrar, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

+1 cc to Mr.A.Saravanan , Advocate in SR.No. 73293 +1 cc to The Special Government Pleader in SR.No.73862 skn AE/MR KKR/SAR2/25.09.2017/3P/6C W.P.(MD)No.15630 of 2017 21.08.2017