Madras High Court
Kremmer Sandegren Foundation ... vs The District Registrar on 24 January, 2018
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 24.01.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.(MD)No.555 of 2018
Kremmer Sandegren Foundation Pattukottai
represented by Vice President,
D.Arulraj. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The District Registrar,
Registration Department,
Trichy.
2. The Joint Sub-Registrar No.3,
Office of the Joint Sub Registrar No.3,
Tiruchirapalli.
3. Asaithambi
4. P.James
5. A.Arokiyaraj
6. M.Sundaresan
7.D.Jegan Britto
... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to enquiry
and cancel / bogus / fabricated 1.Doc.No.1753/2001 dated 20.09.2001,
2.Doc.No.1217/2005 dated 05.05.2005, 3.Doc.No.3059/2005 dated 21.11.2005, 4.
Doc.No.3384/2006 dated 11.08.2006, executed by respondent Nos.3 to 7 in view
of the Circular No.67 dated 03.11.2011 (C.No.52338/C1/2011) Procedure, by
considering the petitioner's application dated 11.12.2017 within the period
stipulated by this Court.
!For Petitioner : Mr.A.Haja Mohideen
^For R1 & R2 : Mrs.VPM.Vaishnavi
:ORDER
The relief sought for in this writ petition is for a direction to the first respondent to conduct an enquiry in respect of bogus / fabricated Doc.No.1753/2001 dated 20.09.2001, 2.Doc.No.1217/2005 dated 05.05.2005,
3.Doc.No.3059/2005 dated 21.11.2005, 4. Doc.No.3384/2006 dated 11.08.2006, by considering the petitioner's application dated 11.12.2017.
2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner made a submission that the writ petitioner has submitted a compliant on 11.12.2017 in respect of certain fraudulent registrations done through impersonation or by producing false documents and evidences. The complaint was sent through registered post to the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred the Circular No.67, dated 03.11.2011, issued by the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai-28. As per the Circular, the District Registrar should complete the enquiry maximum in two months in each case and if the parties are not appearing for more than 2 summons, ex-parte order should be passed based upon the documents, evidences and witnesses available. While issuing summons, mode of RPAD should be adopted. At the outset, the Inspector General of Registration issued instructions and guidelines to be followed in respect of the complaints received relating to fraudulent registration through impersonation or production of false documents and evidences.
3. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that in spite of the specific complaint sent by him on 11.12.2017, no action has been taken by the respondents on the complaint.
4. Under such circumstances, the first respondent is directed to consider the complaint given by the writ petitioner on 11.12.2017 and initiate appropriate action on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petitioner is directed to enclose the copy of the representation and the documents along with the order passed in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.
To
1. The District Registrar, Registration Department, Trichy.
2. The Joint Sub-Registrar No.3, Office of the Joint Sub Registrar No.3, Tiruchirapalli.
.