R.Jagadeeshwaran v. The District Registrar Coimbatore South-1
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, writ petition stands disposed of
Provisions considered
Judgment
WP No.17981 of 2026__________Page1 of 5IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 01-06-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQWP No.17981 of 2026R.Jagadeeshwaran..PetitionerVs1.The District Registrar Coimbatore South-1,No.333, Singapore Plaza 5th Floor, Crosscut Road, Coimbatore-641 012.2.Argus Nagar Welfare Association, Registration No.94/2025No.33/25 Argus Nagar, Peelamedu, Coimbatore-641 004. ..RespondentsPRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent, the District Registrar Coimbatore South-1, Coimbatore, to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 14.01.2026 and pass orders. For Petitioner :Mr.Ayyachamy P.For Respondents: Mr.Ilayaraj Kumar, Government Advocatefor R1 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.17981 of 2026__________Page2 of 5ORDERThe present writ petition has been filed for a direction to first respondent, the District Registrar Coimbatore South-1, Coimbatore, to consider and dispose of petitioner’s representation dated 14.01.2026.2.
It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that sometime in the year 1987, an association with the name, Argus Welfare Association was registered bearing registration No.125 of 1987 dated 27.11.1987. The registration stood cancelled for non-filing of statutory returns. The second respondent has now got registered with the same name viz., Argus Welfare Association bearing registration No.94 of 2025 dated 21.04.2025. Learned counsel would further submit that petitioner is the member of the earlier/first association which had now become defunct, owned lands to an extent of 2.97 acres, out of which, an extent of about 50 cents remains vacant and has not been sold. There is a possibility that the second respondent society may misuse the name and utilise the said land without any right, title or interest over the said property. It is in such circumstances that petitioner had submitted a representation dated 14.01.2026 before first respondent referring inter alia to Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, regarding the limitation/restriction in registering a society with identical or similar or previously registered society. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.17981 of 2026__________Page3 of 53.
Operative part
Learned Government Advocate for first respondent would submit that they would consider petitioner’s representation dated 14.01.2926 and pass appropriate orders, after affording petitioner and second respondent an opportunity of hearing by issuing notice, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court, which was agreed to by learned counsel for petitioner.4. In view thereof, there shall be a direction to first respondent, to consider petitioner’s representation dated 14.01.2026 on its own merits and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to petitioner as well as second respondent, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any views with regard to the merits of the case. 5. Accordingly, writ petition stands disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.
01-06-2026Index: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation: Yes/NoMRN https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.17981 of 2026__________Page4 of 5To1.The District Registrar Coimbatore South-1,No.333, Singapore Plaza 5th Floor, Crosscut Road, Coimbatore-641 012. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.17981 of 2026__________Page5 of 5MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.MRNWP No.17981 of 202601-06-2026
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, writ petition stands disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Registration Act, 1908.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.