C. PALANIYAPPAN Vs. REGISTRAR GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition is for a writ of certiorari, challenging the charge memo issued to the petitioners.

(2.) The averment of the writ petitioners in the writ petition is that LAOP No.64 of 1998, was disposed of, on 28/10/1993, on the file of Principal Sub-Court, Tiruvannamalai. There were five claimants in the said LAOP. Claimant Nos.3 and 5, Ravai Kannu Gnanasekaran and Narayanachari passed away pending LAOP. Applications were filed to implead the legal heirs of Claimant No.3 and Claimant No. 5. Applications were allowed. Compensation as awarded in the LAOP was deposited in the Court.

(3.) After the disposal of LAOP, a vakalathnama was filed in favour of an Advocate, Mr. R.Gunasekaran. The Vakalatnama contained four signatures of the claimants, viz., (i). Ranganathan (ii). Ravai Kannu Gnanasekaran, (iii). Kumarasamy and (iv). Narayanan. An application was filed for withdrawing the amounts deposited in the account of LAOP. The same was allowed and compensation was given to Advocate R. Gunasekaran.