Point of Law: Maintainability is essentially a matter which needs to be addressed by Court on judicial side, while clarifying that Registry is free to consider maintainability of matter.

ORDER :

Unnumbered Writ Petition corresponds to file No.9031706 of 2021 is one instituted seeking, among others, a direction to the Chief Justice of this Court to comply with the In-House Procedure adopted by a Full Court Meeting of the Honourable Supreme Court in relation to a complaint against a Judge. Unnumbered Writ Petition corresponds to file No.9031715 of 2021 is one instituted seeking, among others, a direction to the Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of this Court to comply with the In-House Procedure in relation to a complaint against two Judges.

2. When the Writ Petition corresponds to file No.9031706 of 2021 was instituted, the Registry entertained a doubt as to whether a Writ Petition could be instituted seeking relief aforesaid against the Chief Justice of this Court, and the counsel for the petitioner was required to clarify the position. In response to the said query of the Registry, the learned counsel for the petitioner clarified that a Writ Petition could certainly be instituted against the Chief Justice of this Court. The Registry, thereupon, sought a further clarification from the counsel for the petitioner as to whether the stand taken by him is correct, in the light of the decision of the High Court of Calcutta in (1961 KLT SN 5 (C.No.11) Cal. = AIR 1961 Cal. 545) and the decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.485 of 1963. The counsel for the petitioner took exception to the said query pointing out that the Registry is not authorised to seek such clarification, for it is a pure question of law to be decided on the judicial side. Identical clarifications were sought by the Registry from the counsel for the petitioner in the Writ Petition corresponds to file No.9031715 of 2021 also, and identical stand was taken by the counsel for the petitioner in the said case as well.

3. Since the Registry was not impressed by the stand taken by the counsel for the petitioner, as required by the counsel for the petitioner, the matters were placed before the Court for appropriate orders.

4. When the matters were taken up, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that though the Registry was justified in entertaining a doubt as to whether the Writ Petitions of the instant nature are maintainable, when the counsel for the petitioner clarified the doubt of the Registry in the affirmative, the matters should have been numbered and placed before the Court for decision as to the sustainability of the doubt entertained by the Registry on the judicial side. According to the learned counsel, it was highly improper for the Registry to conduct a further probe into the issue and seek further clarification in the matter, for, by such conduct, the Registry has entered the domain of judicial function. It was pointed out by the learned counsel that the practice of this nature is one that was deprecated by the Division Bench of this Court in Ayub Khan P.A. v. State of Kerala and Another, (2012 (1) KLT 759 = 2012 (1) KHC 615) and the Apex Court in Surendran P. v. State by Inspector of Police, 2019 (3) KHC 102).

5. When this Court required the learned counsel for the petitioner to make his submissions as to the sustainability of the doubt entertained by the Registry, after assuring the counsel that his objections against the conduct of the Registry would be considered, the stand taken by the learned counsel was that it is improper for this Court to require the counsel to address the court on the issue relating to the sustainability of the doubt entertained by the Registry before numbering the writ petition, for the same would legitimise the alleged improper conduct of the Registry. When this Court took the stand that there may not be any impropriety in hearing the counsel on the sustainability of the doubt raised by the Registry in an unnumbered matter, the counsel for the petitioner made submissions on the issue relating to the sustainability of the doubt raised by the Registry after taking strong exception to the v