Q. DAWSON Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus, to direct the second respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation, dated 14.11.2012, by conducting an enquiry in accordance with law especially with regard to decision on "Undisputed Ownership" and title of property and on merits within a specific time limit to be fixed by this Court.

(2.) According to the petitioner, he was appointed as the Executor of the Will of one George Joseph Chambers, who lived in India, of erstwhile Chambers family. The descendants of George Alexander Chambers established the Chrome Leather Company in 1913 and that is how the present Chromepet area was named. According to him, the only living descendant, who is living in India, viz., George Joseph Chambers executed a Will in the year 2008 and the petitioner is appointed as Executor of the Will, reserving 50% of the property in his favour and the remaining 50% favouring his third wife and five children. The Will was probated by this Court in O.P.No.382 of 2010, by order dated 25.01.2011. Subsequently, the beneficiaries of the Will filed an application to revoke the Probate in 2011 and that has been converted into a Testamentary Original Suit being contested and is pending before this Court in T.O.S.No.7 of 2012. According to him, in the meanwhile, the fourth respondent claiming as Managing Director of Chrome Leather Company has leased out a huge property to the fifth respondent Trust, wherein, the Trustees are none other than the wife and daughter of the fourth respondent. The fifth respondent Trust applied to the second respondent/Medical Council of India for grant of permission to set up a private Medical College and they have been granted permission. According to him, as per Regulation 3.1.1. of the Medical Council of India Establishment of Medical College Regulations 1999 (Amended 2010) and UGC (Affiliation of Colleges by Universities) Regulations, 2009, there should be undisputed ownership and possession of land measuring not less than 2 acres (in this case 25 acres) if it is located in metropolitan cities and 5 acres if it is located in other areas. Therefore, according to the petitioner, since, there is a cloud in the ownership of the land, he had already lodged police complaint; that has not been taken into consideration. Then, he made a representation on 14.11.2012 stating that the fourth respondent got the property of M/s.Chrome Leather Company by claiming transfer of non-existed shares of the Complany in a bogus tender auction. Therefore, when the guideline of "Undisputed Ownership" is clear, the second respondent, who is the statutory body, should have considered his representation and proceeded in accordance with law, to cancel the licence. Aggrieved against the in action on the part of the second respondent, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition for a mandamus, directing the second respondent to dispose of his representation dated 14.11.2012, by conducting an enquiry especially with regard to decision on "Undisputed Ownership" and title of the property.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the second respondent may be directed to dispose of his representation dated 14.11.2012, by conducting an enquiry especially with regard to decision on