The Advocate did not have locus standi to bring a public interest litigation. The Chief Justice had the power to give directions to the Registry. Suo motu cognizance should be exercised with caution. Writ petitions should be filed based on the cause of action and the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court.

K.CHANDRU, J.

1. This Special Bench was constituted by the Hon'ble Chief Justice vide order dated 14.10.2011 to hear the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.5709 of 2011. The Bench came to be constituted on a reference being made by the division bench vide order dated 26.09.2011.

2. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner, a practicing Advocate of the Madurai Bench allegedly in public interest. Initially, the prayer made in the writ petition is for a direction to the Registrar (Judicial) of the Madurai Bench to number and list the writ petitions falling within the territorial jurisdiction of the Principal Bench at Madras at Madurai Bench also as the writ petitions falling within the Madurai Bench jurisdiction are being numbered and listed by the Registrar General of the Madras High Court before the Principal seat at Madras by considering the representation, dated 18.04.2011 and pass further orders.

3. In the representation, dated 18.04.2011 addressed to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India, Registrar General of the Madras High Court and the Registrar (Judicial), Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, it was stated by the petitioner that the Madurai Bench was started functioning from 24.7.2004 facing grave opposition mostly from the practicing Advocates at the Principal seat. After great struggle by the Advocates of the Southern Districts, the Madurai Bench became a reality. Once the Madurai Bench became a reality, few districts which were originally designated to the Madurai Bench were taken away by undue influence attached to the Principal seat. To add to this, petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution were being filed at the Principal seat even though there is no territorial jurisdiction for the same. This is being done with the knowledge of both the bench and the bar at the Principal Bench at Madras. Even though there is no legal sanctity for filing writ petitions falling within the territorial jurisdiction of the Madurai Bench, it is being filed by adding one more respondent from the Madras or New Delhi. There was an office note issued by the then Chief Justice of the Madras High Court that no petitions could be filed in Madras which fell within the jurisdiction of the Madurai Bench. Repeated representations to the successive Chief Justices including the present incumbent by the Advocates Association at Madurai did not yield a desired result. Nowhere in the entire subcontinent, the jurisdiction of the benches are transgressed by the Principal seat and that Madras being an exception. Therefore, he had requested the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India to direct filing of petitions under Article 226 falling within the jurisdiction of the Madras High Court, i.e., Principal Bench, at the Madurai Bench also as petitions which ought to have been filed and adjudicated at the Madurai Bench are being done at Madras, which is nothing but an equitable justice.

4. Subsequently, he filed M.P.(MD).No.2 of 2011 seeking to amend the prayer. The amendment prayer reads as follows :

"To issue a writ of mandamus directing the second and third respondents not to pass, number or list writ petitions, writ appeals and habeas corpus writ petitions even if the respondents are from Delhi or Chennai falling within the Madurai Bench territorial jurisdiction / part of falling within Madurai jurisdiction / cause of action and when the petitioner's address is within the Madurai Bench jurisdiction irrespective of the respondents' addresses, at the Principal Seat, Chennai and to further transfer all pending writ petitions, writ appeals and habeas corpus writ petitions filed at the Principal Seat on or after 24.07.2004 falling within the Madurai jurisdiction and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

This amendment was ordered by a division bench vide order dated 23.09.2011.

5. Pursuant to the direction dated 23.09.2011, all Associations of lawyers both at the Principal