K.R.Lakshmi Narayanan vs The District Registrar ... on 4 August, 2017

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

K.R.Lakshmi Narayanan vs The District Registrar ... on 4 August, 2017

Bench: K.Kalyanasundaram

        

 

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT               

DATED: 04.08.2017  

CORAM   

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM                

W.P.(MD)No.8893 of 2009  
and 
W.M.P(MD).Nos.1,2,3,4 and 5 of 2009  

K.R.Lakshmi Narayanan                                   ...Petitioner      

-Vs-

1.The District Registrar (Administration),
   Registration Department,
   Madurai South,
   Madurai.     

2.V.Neethisekar                                         ...Respondents         

PRAYER:  Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first
respondent to take proper and appropriate action against the 2nd respondent
based on in his letter dated 30.08.2004.
        
!For Petitioner         : Mr.S.Rengasamy  

For Respondents         : Mr.G.Muthukannan          
                          Government Advocate for R1 
                        : Mr.C.Vakeeswaran for R2 

:ORDER

The prayer sought for in the writ petition for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to take proper and appropriate action against the 2nd respondent based on the representation of the petitioner, dated 30.08.2004.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the second respondent was a promoter of the flats and he was also having an association. The second respondent has collected huge amount from the other flat owners. But he did not submit the proper amount. Hence, the suit was filed in O.S.No.57 of 2004 on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif, Madurai Town. The petitioner also sent a representation to the first respondent to take action against the second respondent.

3.Heard Mr.S.Rengasamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.G.Muthukannan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent and Mr.C.Vakeeswaran, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and perused the materials available on record.

4.The learned counsel for the second respondent would submit that pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD).No.2905 of 2008 dated 23.08.2008, the second respondent submitted all the records to the first respondent and that the second respondent is not functioning as on date and a separate association was also formed.

5.In view of the above facts, no further adjudication is necessary in this case. Hence this writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.

To The District Registrar (Administration), Registration Department, Madurai South, Madurai.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madras High Court