2012 WLR 259, 2012 (2) LW 185
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. BASHA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR
V. Manikandan
Versus
The Registrar General, High Court of Madras
W.P.SR.No.106151 of 2011
Decided On : 27-02-2012
WPSR - Maintainability of Writ Petition - Rules framed under Article 226 of the Constitution - [Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Rules framed under Article 226]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an advocate, filed a writ petition challenging the administrative procedures of the High Court's Registry. The Registry raised queries on the maintainability of the petition due to non-compliance with filing procedures.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's non-compliance with filing procedures and impleading of a judge without proper evidence rendered the writ petition non-maintainable.
Issues: Maintainability of the writ petition, compliance with filing procedures, impleading of a judge without proper evidence
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's failure to comply with filing procedures and lack of evidence rendered the writ petition non-maintainable.
Final Decision: The court rejected the WPSR and ordered the Registry to follow the Rules framed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the circulars issued by the Chief Justice before numbering any writ petition.
(K.N.BASHA, J.)
1. This W.P.SR is posted before us pursuant to the order dated 31.1.2012 of the First Bench, which reads as follows:
"This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is an Advocate appearing before us, against one of the Hon'ble Judges, viz., Hon'ble Ms.Justice K.Suguna and the Registrar General. The same petitioner Advocate filed another writ petition against the Chief Justice of this Court.
2.) When this case was called out, the petitioner Advocate submits that this Court should not hear the matter. Without making any observation, we think it proper to place the matter before another Division Bench. Let this case be listed before the Division Bench hearing another similar writ petition viz., W.P.No.19894 of 2011."
2. Mr. V.Manikandan, learned counsel, who himself is the petitioner in the writ petition, submitted his arguments elaborately on 6.2.2012 along with connected matters.
3. The petitioner, who is an Advocate, practising for the past ten years has sought to file the writ petition with the following prayer:
"In the light of the facts narrated in the appended affidavit, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorarified mandamus quashing the impugned circular dated 13.2.2007 issued by the first respondent's sub-ordinate upon the second respondent's instructions as being illegal, unconstitutional and opposed to the law declared by the Supreme Court from time to time, and explicitly restrain the first respondent & her sub-ordinates from seeking oral instructions from any individual judge other than the Chief Justice, and declare the practice of retaining motion cases by the registry for days, months, & years and thereafter posting them without assigning it a case number under the caption "for maintainability" as obstructionist, contemptuous, arbitrary, capricious and illegal."
The Registry returned the papers by raising the following querries:
(1) It may be stated how the writ petition is maintainable for the relief sought for therein against the second respondent.
(2) Prayer needs clarification.
(3) It may be stated that how a sitting High Court Hon'ble Judge is challenged in the writ petition.
Subject to maintainability, the following defects to be complied with:
(1) Affidavit not attested.
(2) Batta not filed.
(3) Required copies not filed.
(4) Typed set not filed with relevant documents.
The learned counsel represented the papers without compliance of the defects pointed out and without assigning any reason for maintainability but merely stating as follows:
"Complied and represented on 23.11.2011"
The Registry having not satisfied with the re-submission of papers, put up a note for maintainability and the same is posted before us as stated supra.
4. From the averments made in the affidavit the sole contention of the petitioner is that whether or not a Judge can usurp the administrative powers conferred upon the Chief Justice and interfere with the administration of the High Court and the Registry officials be permitted to usurp the power of Judges sitting on the judicial side of the High Court. The cause of action for filing this WPSR appears to be that the petitioner is facing difficulties in getting his cases numbered promptly by the Registry and that the cases are not posted for admission immediately after numbering.
5. The filing of the writ petition, numbering, posting for admission, etc., before this Chartered High Court is as per the Rules framed to regulate the Proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, which was issued by virtue of Article 225 of the Constitution of India and of all other powers enabling the High Court to regulate proceedings under the Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As per the said Rules issued in the year 1995, the writ petition of any kind shall be supported by an affidavit containing the facts and grounds and a petition containing prayer, which shall be filed in the office of the Registrar by the petitioner or his duly author
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.