K.N. BASHA, J.

( 1. ) THESE two writ petitions are connected with the earlier writ petition in W.P. No. 19894 of 2011 and hence, these petitions are also posted along with the said numbered writ petition "for maintainability" before this specially constituted Bench as per the Orders of the Hon'ble The Chief Justice.

( 2. ) BOTH the writ petitions along with miscellaneous petitions have been filed by S. Padma, wife of the deceased/Sankararaman, and Kannan, son-in-law of the deceased/Sankararaman respectively with similar and identical prayer of seeking the relief of issuance of writ of continuing mandamus issuing direction to constitute a SIT (Special Investigation Team) to investigate into the allegations of bribery of trial Judge, his wife, wit- Postal Page No. 148 nesses, etc., and manipulation of trial proceedings in the murder case in S.C. No. 94 of 2005.

( 3. ) AT the outset, it is to be stated that the petitioners enclosed two complaints one dated 28.9.2011 said to have been given by advocate Ms.Vijayalakshmi and another complaint dated 30.9.2011 said to have been given by S.Padma and there is no complaint or petition preferred by Kannan. A perusal of the said papers annexed along with the writ petition as typed-set reveals that the allegations are revolving around the alleged conversation of Audio conference call telecasted through the Prime Time TV purported to be between the present trial Judge in S.C. No. 94 of 2005 and one of the main accused in the said case., and we have elaborately dealt with the said allegation while disposing of the writ petition in W.P. No. 19894 of 2011 filed by one Mr.P.Sundararajan, advocate, regarding the trial of S.C. No. 94 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge (Chief Judge), Pondicherry. Therefore, it is clear that the present two petitions have been filed as a consequential petitions to the writ petition in W.P. No. 19894 of 2011 with the additional prayer to constitute a SIT (Special Investigation Team) to investigate the allegations of bribery of the trial Judge and others and an interim prayer seeking direction to the appropriate uniformed force to provide protection to the family of the petitioners till the disposal of the writ petitions and also with other further interim prayers of staying all further proceedings in S.C. No. 94 of 2005 and to initiate punitive action against the Registrar (Vigilance), Madras High Court, for his unwillingness to collect the evidence offered to him in the bribery scam.

( 4. ) IN view of the disposal of the writ petition in W.P. No. 19894 of 2011, we are of the considered view that all these petitions filed containing unwarranted remarks impleading the Hon'ble The Chief Justice of this Chartered High Court have become infructuous.

( 5. ) FIRST of all, these two petitions are not maintainable on the sole ground of not impleading the relevant, necessary and proper parties. Secondly, the relief sought for by the petitioners has already been sought for by the petitioner in W.P.No. 19894 of 2011 and in respect of the said writ petition, the same counsel, namely, Mr. V. Manikandan Vathan Chettiar, is the counsel on record and he is also well-aware about the stay granted in that writ petition staying all further proceedings in S.C. No. 94 of 2005 pending on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge (Chief Judge), Pondicherry, as per the orders of this Court dated 25.8.2011.

( 6. ) IT is relevant to note that the Registry has rightly raised the question of maintainability on the following grounds in W.P. (SR) No. 101554 of 2011 :

"7. Cause title needs clarification. 2. Prayer needs clarification. IT may be stated, how the relief is sought for against the Chief Justice of High Court 3. Copies of document filed in typed set appears as not relevant to the relief (Page No. 6)".

However, the learned counsel resubmitted the papers with the following endorsement:

"Please read the affidavit and the note appended to the petition before making such