Full Judgment
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 01.04.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
P.L.Vendhan ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Inspector General of Registration, No.100, Santhom High Road, Chennai - 600 028. 2.The District Registrar, Muthoorani Mudukku Santhu, Karaikudi, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District. 3.The Sub Registrar, Ponnamaravathi Sub Registration Office, Ponnamaravathi, Pudukkottai District. 4.Vignesh Pandiyan, Then SRO, Ponnamaravathy Sub Registration Office, Pudukkottai District. ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first and second respondents to conduct proper enquiry against the fourth respondent, by affording opportunity the petitioner and to take appropriate department Page No. 1 of 5
action against the fourth respondent, for his sheer negligence and dereliction of duties, by considering the petitioner's representation dated 02.01.2026 within time frame as may be fixed by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.Azhagu Shivanandan For R1 to R3 : Mr.A.Baskaran Additional Government Pleader *****
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction to the first and second respondents to conduct an enquiry and take appropriate departmental action against the fourth respondent for his sheer negligence and dereliction of duty, after affording an opportunity to the petitioner, on consideration of the petitioner’s representation dated 02.01.2026.
2. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and
considering the representation of the petitioner dated 02.01.2026, it is seen that the grievance of the petitioner is that the fourth respondent, who was then functioning as the Sub-Registrar, Ponnamaravathi Sub- Registration Office, admitted and registered the documents as Document Nos. 592/2025, 3487/2025 and 3491/2025 without properly discharging
Page No. 2 of 5 the obligation entrusted upon him to verify the correctness of the particulars in the documents presented.
3. It is further seen that the documents were admitted for
registration without the production of parent documents or a non-traceable certificate, which, however, was not mandatory prior to the introduction of Section 34-C of the Registration Act, 1908. It is also stated that a Life Certificate was produced and that impersonation had taken place.
4. Upon considering the same, if any criminal offence such as
impersonation, cheating or forgery is made out, it is open for the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional police and lodge a criminal complaint. If any further steps are required to be taken with reference to the documents, it is open for the petitioner to approach the competent civil court to declare the said documents as null and void or as the case may be, to ignore the documents and assert his title.
5. The present representation has been made seeking appropriate departmental action. Once such a representation is made, it is for the higher authorities to consider the same and if any misconduct is made out, Page No. 3 of 5
to take a decision in that regard. It has been consistently held in repeated judgments of this Court that initiation of departmental action falls within the domain of the employer. Merely because a complaint has been given by the petitioner, he does not acquire a concomitant right to enforce, by way of a writ of mandamus, the initiation of departmental action.
6. In view thereof, the prayer in the Writ Petition cannot be countenanced. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above observations, leaving the liberty open to the petitioner. No costs.
01.04.2026 JEN Neutral Citation : No To 1.The Inspector General of Registration, No.100, Santhom High Road, Chennai - 600 028. 2.The District Registrar, Muthoorani Mudukku Santhu, Karaikudi, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District. 3.The Sub Registrar, Ponnamaravathi Sub Registration Office, Ponnamaravathi, Pudukkottai District. Page No. 4 of 5
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
JEN 01.04.2026 Page No. 5 of 5