At the outset, it may be necessary to briefly narrate the grievance ventilated in each of the petitions.

[i] Crl.O.P.SR.No.15125 of 2014:

This petition has been filed by Mr. Manikandan Vathan Chettiar for a direction to the Registrar General of this Court to take action against the Deputy Registrar, Criminal Section for not listing Crl.O.P.Nos.1536, 1537 and 1541 of 2014 before the Court.

[ii] Crl.O.P.SR.No.15279 of 2014:

The petitioner in this case is one Aarthy Shankar, who has made a sitting Judge of this Court, Mr. A.L. Somayaji, learned Advocate General and Mr. S.Shanmugavelayudham, learned Public Prosecutor, High Court as party respondents apart from other respondents. In the petition it is averred that her husband Shankar is being subjected to witch hunting by the former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu Mr. M.Karunanidhi and the sitting Judge, with the assistance of Mr. S.Shanmugavelayudham, learned Public Prosecutor and other police officials. Sweeping allegations have been made against the sitting Judge and also against Mr. A.L. Somayaji, learned Advocate General of the State.

[iii] Crl.O.P.SR.No.17070 of 2014 and 15822 of 2014:

Both these petitions have been filed by one Panimalar for almost same relief, except that in the former she has requested the appointment of a serving High Court Judge to supervise the enquiry and in the latter she has requested the CBI to investigate her complaint dated 11.03.2014. In these petitions, the petitioner has made a sitting Judge of this Court as party respondent together with others including the learned Advocate General and the State Public Prosecutor. She has made allegations ranging from dowry harassment against one Prabhu to perfidy, allegedly committed by her friend one Maha. All possible characters including Politicians, Industrialists, Police, Cinema Stars, Journalists, Advocates, Judicial Officers et al appear in various scenes like in a typical Tamil soap opera. Strangely, those who can refute the allegations like Dinesh, Maha, Tada Chandrasekar, Prabhu and Jansi Rani have not been made as respondents for reasons best known to the petitioner.

2. Heard.

3. On these four matters which were filed praying for various reliefs as Criminal OPs purporting to invoke the power of this Court vested under section 482 Cr.P.C, the Registry expressed certain queries. They were posted for maintainability before the concerned Judge. However, Mr. Manikandan Vathan Chettiar, Advocate who had filed one matter as party-in-person and in another matter where he had filed a memo also purporting to represent the other two criminal OPs sent identical letters to the Registry dated 9.4.2014. It is necessary to refer to the reply which is as follows:

“1. In a family dispute between 2 TV News journalists involving criminal and even constitutional overtones such as phone-tapping etc, whereas, on 4.4.14, her Lordship Justice Mrs. Aruna Jagadeesan had recused her from Crl. OP Nos. 4379/14, 1536/14, 1537/14, 1541/14 and the matters filed by the same petitioner & respondent vis-à-vis the same lis were posted before Justice Mrs. Aruna Jagadeesan on 8.4.14 in Crl.OPSR Nos. 11170/14, 15125/14, 15279/14 & 15822/14.

2. When the matters were heard yesterday, her Lordship adjourned the matters instructing me to circulate a letter to the Hon’ble Chief Justice, when I had pointed-out that judicial service matters are required to be placed before the DB as per the roster, and possibly as a consequence of the law laid down on the judicial side of this or the apex court, the reasons for which are better known to the registry which handles such matters on the administrative side.

3. The views of section 15(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act filed by the same victims have also been raised by way of writ proceedings, which are also to be placed before a DB.

4. Since it is incorrect to place 2 matters between the same persons before 2 learned single judges, which might create conflicting decisions vis-à-vis the same relief, it is here