R.Chandran, S/O. Rajamani, v. The District Registrar

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 19.02.2020

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAVINDRAN and W.M.P.(MD) No.7246 of 2016 R.Chandran ... Petitioner -vs1.The District Registrar (Societies) District Court Campus Tiruchirapalli 2.The District Registrar Sivagangai District Sivagangai 3.The Sub-Registrar Paramakudi Sub-Registration Office Paramakudi Ramanathapuram District 4.RM.Elangovan 5.D.Abraham Doss 6.A.Bala Neelamegam ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent herein to take appropriate action against the third respondent for registration of the Power of Attorney dated 04.04.2016 executed by the fifth respondent in favour of the sixth respondent and consequently, consider the petitioner's representation dated 08.04.2016.

For Petitioner :

Mr.S.Anwar Sameem For Respondents :

Mr.M.Murugan Government Advocate for R1 to R3 No appearance for R5 & R6

O R D E R

[Order of the Court was made by M.DURAISWAMY, J.] The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to issue a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to take appropriate 1/3

action against the third respondent for registration of the Power of Attorney Deed, dated 04.04.2016, executed by the fifth respondent in favour of the sixth respondent and consider his representation, dated 08.04.2016.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the third respondent had registered a Power of Attorney Deed, dated 04.04.2016, executed by the fifth respondent in favour of the sixth respondent, pertaining to the property belonging to him. In these circumstances, the petitioner has given a representation, dated 08.04.2016, to the second respondent to take action against the third respondent for registering the Power of Attorney Deed pertaining to the property belonging to him.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that it would be suffice to direct the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 08.04.2016 and pass orders, on merits in accordance with law.

4. Mr.M.Murugan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, submitted that the second respondent may be directed to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 08.04.2016, and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law.

5. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and taking into consideration the limited prayer sought for by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, without expressing any opinion with regard to the merits of the case, we direct the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 08.04.2016 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

6. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AS) // True Copy // / /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) krk 2/3

To:

1.The District Registrar (Societies), District Court Campus, Tiruchirapalli.

2.The District Registrar, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

3.The Sub-Registrar, Paramakudi Sub-Registration Office, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.

+1 CC to Mr.T.ANTONY ARUL RAJ, Advocate ( SR-7170[F] dated 19/02/2020 ) +1 CC to SPL.GP ( SR-7258[F] dated 20/02/2020 ) and W.M.P.(MD) No.7246 of 2016 19.02.2020 VB(02.03.2020) 3P 6C 3/3