S. Manikumar, J.

Claiming himself to be an editor of a magazine, Indian Reporter and Founder and President of the Indian Makkal Mandram, a forum for readers of Indian Reporter, petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus, directing the Registrar General, High Court, Madras, Chennai, to frame regulations, rule or scheme, for presenting and registration/filing of the public interest writ petitions and also withdrawing the same, before this Court.

2. When this Bench posed a question, as to whether the petitioner has made any averments, regarding framing of regulations, relating to public interest writ petitions, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by the High Court and the Notification issued, Mr. Chockalingam, learned counsel for the petitioner replied that the petitioner has not made any averments.

3. Grievance of the petitioner is that certain public interest writ petitions have been filed by political personalities and being withdrawn, thereby the precious time of the High Court is wasted by the writ petitioners and consequently, there is a delay in justice being rendered to other people.

4. Paragraph Nos.5, 6 and 7, reasons assigned by the petitioner, for filing the instant writ petition, for a mandamus, as stated supra, are extracted hereunder:-

"5. I submit that many PILs are dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court which shows how the PILS are being filed some personal interested people without reasonable merit. I further submit that some PILs are dismissed as withdrawn after admission and notices to the respondents and it is known how much Court Official time are required and man power used for numbering, listing before the Court and hearing to get admission and notice. And I suspect the PILs are being withdrawn and must be disposed of on merit by the Hon'ble Court.

6. I submit that regarding Ex. CM Karunanithi burial allotment at Marina beach case was hearing, few PILs were withdrawn which had been filed with similar nature. These cases had been pending for long period before this Hon'ble Court with hearing of several hours

by Hon'ble Judges; and simply these petitions were withdrawn for political and personal benefits which had been criticised by the public people and media. I came to know that third, fourth and fifth respondents withdrawn the PILs which were questioning the allotments of burial at Marina beach to the political personalities. All these petitions are withdrawn only for the political purpose/gain without any justification.

7. I submit that the sixth respondent Mr. Traffic Ramasamy filed similar PIL who warned by this Hon'ble Court for taking different stands frequently in the Court itself and he is condemning the Hon'ble Judges before the media and public which are degrading the judicial system which creates adverse impression to the public about the Court, which seems his personal motive in the PIL and he should be punished."

5. On the above averments, Mr. C. Chokkalingam, learned counsel for the petitioner has made submissions.

6. Attention of this Court was also invited to paragraph No.20 of the judgment, in ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL, (2004) 3 SCC 349, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has extracted paragraph No.46 of the judgment, in SACHIDANAND PANDEY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL, (1987) 2 SCC 295, held as follows:-

"Public Interest Litigation has now come to stay. But one is led to think that it poses a threat to Courts and public alike. Such cases are now filed without any rhyme or reason. It is, therefore, necessary to lay down clear guidelines and to outline the correct parameters for entertainment of such petitions. If Courts do not restrict the free flow of such cases in the name of public interest litigations, the traditional litigation will suffer and the Courts of law, instead of dispensing justice, will have to take upon themselves administrative and executive functions.

7. Reasons for filing the instant writ petition are that the Court's time is wasted and that t