Madras High Court
T.Rajakumar vs M/S. Nadar Mahajana Sangam on 28 April, 2022
W.A(MD)No.406 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 28.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.A(MD)No.406 of 2022
and C.M.P(MD) No.4112 of 2022
T.Rajakumar .. Appellant
Vs
1. M/s. Nadar Mahajana Sangam,
Represented by its General Secretary,
No.2, South Chithirai Street,
Madurai - 625 001.
2. M/s. Nadar Mahajana Sangam,
Sa. Vellaichamy Nadar Kalloori Peravai,
Represented through its Secretary,
Nagamalai Pudukkottai,
Madurai – 625 019.
3. M/s. Nadar Mahajana Sangam,
Kamaraj Polytechnic Paripalana Sabai,
Represented through its Secretary,
No.2, South Chithirai Street,
Madurai - 625 001.
4. The Deputy Inspector General of Registration,
Integrated Complex of Registration Department,
TNAU Nagar,
Rajakampeeram, Othakkadai,
Madurai - 625 107.
5.The District Registrar (Administration),
District Registrar Office,
Madurai (South), Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
W.A(MD)No.406 of 2022
6.N. Rajkumar,
The District Registrar (Administration),
District Registrar Office,
Madurai (South),
Madurai.
7.T. Sekaran, .. Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
against the order dated 07.04.2022 made in W.P.(MD) No. 6359 of
2022.
For Appellant : Mr.C.Arul Vadivel @ Sekar
JUDGMENT
[Delivered by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.]
1. Challenge in this appeal is made to the order
dated 07.04.2022 recorded on W.P.(MD) No. 6359 of 2022.
2. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted
that the present appellant / the fourth respondent in the writ
petition is not heard before passing the order under challenge. It is
also the grievance that he was not even served with the notice on
the petition. It is further submitted that, had the appellant been
served and heard, he could have pointed out the method and
manner in which the election should be conducted. It is submitted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.406 of 2022
that, the election now ordered to be conducted would create
difficulties and therefore the impugned order be interfered with or
modified. Learned advocate for the appellants has further submitted
that the present appellant had made serious grievance against the
petitioners who had no authority to hold the election and they had
also indulged in mal-practices. It is submitted that this appeal be
entertained.
3. Having heard learned advocate for the appellant
and having considered the material on record we find that, though
there may be some substance in the grievance on behalf of the
appellant with regard to the procedure, in substance we find that,
the order passed by learned Single Judge is just and proper and
does not call for any interference. We note that, learned Single
Judge has, without going into the merits, nominated a retired
Hon'ble Judge of this Court to hold the election. Since one of the
grounds raised in memo of appeal would indicate the colour of an
attempt on the part of the present appellant to sabotage the
election in question, with a view to make sure about the record
before learned Single Judge, we have called for the original record.
From record it transpires that, by the subsequent order dated
19.04.2022, the present appellant is deleted as party respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.406 of 2022
4. On conjoint consideration of the above we find
that, no order adverse to the present appellant is passed and in any
case, by the subsequent order he does not remain as party to the
said litigation. Further, taking note of this we could have dismissed
the appeal leaving it open to the present appellant to seek leave of
this Court, however even after grant thereof ultimately the appeal
will be required to be heard and therefore we have not resorted to
any longer route.
5. Having considered the material on record we find
that, whether the present appellant is party respondent, whether he
is heard or whether he was served, the final directions given by
learned Single Judge is just and proper and therefore no
interference is required therein.
6. For the above reasons, this appeal is dismissed.
No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition would not
survive.
(P.U., J) (R.V., J)
28.04.2022
Index : No
ssm/45
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.406 of 2022
To
1. The Deputy Inspector General of Registration,
Integrated Complex of Registration Department,
TNAU Nagar,
Rajakampeeram, Othakkadai,
Madurai - 625 107.
2.The District Registrar (Administration),
District Registrar Office,
Madurai (South), Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.406 of 2022
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
ssm
W.A(MD)No.406 of 2022
28.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
