Bramachari Veerachandran v. Inspector General of Registration

JUDGMENT ((Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.) The appeal is filed by the unsuccessful writ petitioner, who has sought for mandamus forbearing the District Registrar from approving the resolution of the meeting of Sri Ramakrishna Kudil alleged to have been held on

21.09.2024.

¶2The contention of the writ petitioner is that he submitted a representation to the respondents pointing out irregularities in the process of selecting the office bearers, particularly, violation of the Rules of the Society, which mandates the office bearers must be Brammacharis trained in the same Institution and if no suitable Brammachari is available, a suitable Brammachari from other Institute ought to have been appointed. Only in case when no Brammachari suitable is available either within the Institution or outside the Page No.2 of 5 Institution, non Brammacharis can be appointed, that too, only for temporary period. However, in gross violation of the said Rules, resolution dated

21.09.2024 was passed appointing non Brammacharis as Office Bearers.

¶3The learned Single Judge, after considering the submissions, has found that the first respondent, namely, the Inspector General of Registration has conducted the election pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in WP(MD) No.9453 of 2024 and pursuant to the said direction, election was conducted and impugned resolution has been passed and therefore, there cannot be a direction to issue mandamus. Being aggrieved, the intra-court appeal is filed by the writ petitioner.

¶4The learned counsel for the private respondents submitted that pursuant to the resolution dated 21.09.2024, Form VII has been submitted to the Registrar and the same has been accepted on 05.12.2024. Being aggrieved, the appellant herein has filed a comprehensive suit before the District Court,

¶5Therefore, if at all the appellant has any grievance, he can agitate his rights before the District Court, where he has preferred the suit. This Court is Page No.3 of 5 not inclined to make any observations about the merits of the writ petition or writ appeal and leave it open for the appellant to work out his remedy before the civil Court.

¶6With the aforesaid observation, the writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. (G.J, J.) (N.S, J.) Index : Yes / No

23.01.2026 RR To

1.Inspector General of Registration, Registration Department, Chennai 04

2.The District Registrar, Administration, Registration Department Page No.4 of 5 WA(MD)No.42oofo2026 DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,oJ and oN.SENTHILKUMARoo,oJo. RR Orderomadeoin WA(MD)No.42oofo2026 DATEDo:o23.01.2026 PageoNo.5oofo5

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 23.01.2026 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR and CMP(MD) No.533 of 2026 Bramachari Veerachandran Sri Sri Ramakrishna Kudil Thirupparaithurai village Srirangam Taluk Trichy District ... Appellant Vs 1.Inspector General of Registration, Registration Department, Chennai 04 2.The District Registrar, Administration, Registration Department 3.Murugan Palanisamy @ Ramamurthy 4.M.Chithambaram 5.M.Subramanian 6.K.Sambasivam ... Respondents Page No.1 of 5 PRAYER :-Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to prefer this Memorandum of Grounds of Writ Appeal against the order made in WP(MD). No.32613 of 2025 dated 24.11.2025. For Appellants : Mr.S.Muthukrishnan For Respondent : Mr.K.R.Badurus Zaman for R1 and R2 Government Advocate Mr.K.Govindarajan for Mr.R.Murali for R3 to R6