IMPORTANT POINT
The court mandated that all documents in writ petitions and appeals must be legible, with procedures established for handling illegible submissions to ensure fair adjudication.

ORDER :

Anil K. Narendran, J.

These writ appeals are filed by the petitioners in W.P.(C)Nos.36325 of 2022 and 35649 of 2022, challenging the common judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 13.03.2024 in those writ petitions. Registry noted certain defects and the unnumbered writ appeals are listed before this Bench.

1.1. In the writ appeal with Filing No.999/2024, arising out of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.36325 of 2022, Registry noted that the exhibits are not legible in the copy of the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 and 2, produced along with the memorandum of writ appeal. The appellant re-presented the writ appeal after removing, to the extent possible, dark shades on Exts.R1(a) to R1(c). On re-presentation, Registry noted that there are dark shades on the exhibits. It contains a small font, which is not legible.

1.2. In the writ appeal with Filing No.1010/2024, arising out of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.35649 of 2022, Registry noted that Exts.R1(a), R1(e) and R1(f) are not legible and readable in the copy of the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 and 2, produced along with the memorandum of writ appeal. The appellant re-presented the writ appeal stating that since the documents are produced by respondents 1 and 2, along with the counter affidavit filed by them in the writ petition, no clear and legible copies of those documents are available with the appellant.

2. This writ appeal arises out of the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 04.06.2024 in W.P.(C)No.25489 of 2020. Registry noted defects in the light of the judgment of a learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.22708 of 2022, that pages 114 and 122 are not legible. The learned counsel for the appellant re- submitted the memorandum of writ appeal removing pages 114 and 122, which are not legible, with an endorsement that Exts.R3(d) and R3(i) produced along with the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent are not produced in the said memorandum since it is not readable even when the copy of the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition was served on the appellant and the appellant is not relying on those two documents for the adjudication of the writ appeal.

2.1. By the order dated 23.07.2024 of the Division Bench headed by the Honourable the Acting Chief Justice, this matter is directed to be listed before this Bench, which has the roster to hear JPP (Judicial Practice and Procedure) and to decide on the procedure to be followed by Registry regarding the defects noted in physical copies produced before the Court.

3. This writ petition is one filed by respondents 1 to 4 in O.A.No.120 of 2020 on the file of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kochi, challenging Ext.P3 order of the Tribunal dated 05.04.2023, whereby that original application stands allowed in terms of the directions contained paragraph 16 of that order. Registry noted defects and the unnumbered writ petition is listed before this Bench.

3.1. One of the defects noted by Registry is that pages 29 to 43 of the memorandum of the writ petition, i.e., Annexure A1 copy of RMP proceedings and Annexure A2 copy of the letter dated 08.07.2019 are not legible. Therefore, the dark shade has to be removed, or else a typed copy of the same has to be produced. The learned Central Government Counsel answered that a copy of the memorandum of the original application filed by the applicant before the Tribunal is produced along with the memorandum of the writ petition. The Annexures consist of a large number of pages and typing everything is practically impossible.

4. On 29.07.2024, when these matters came up for consideration, this Court noticed that most of the defects noted by Registry in the writ petitions and original petitions [O.P.((KAT) and O.P.(CAT)] are that the copy of the Government orders or communications produced along with the writ petitions/original petitions are not legible. The learned counsel for the appellant in the respective writ appeals and the Secretary of the Kerala High Court