The Court held that the Registry has the power to examine the maintainability of the petition and place the entire cause papers before the Court for a decision on maintainability. It also allowed the appellant to bring up the Certiorarified Mandamus prayer alone, deleting the Mandamus prayer and preserving the right to seek Mandamus later.

JUDGMENT :

S. Manikumar, J.

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 22.08.2019 made in W.P.Sr.No.95296 of 2109.)

1. The appellant has filed WP Sr.Nos.95296 & 98152 of 2019 for the following reliefs.

“To call for the records on the file of the 1st respondent in respect of issue of the Notification No.6/2015-Service Tax dated 01.03.2015 published in Government of India Gazette Extraordinary Part II section 3, Sub-Section (i) No.120 on 01.03.2015 and to quash the same and consequently to direct the 1st respondent to grant exemption to the petitioner from paying the service tax in respect of the works contract service other than commercial nature rendered to the Government, local bodies, Statutory authorities etc., with effect from 01.04.2015, OR, Alternatively, in the event of this Court upholding the impugned notification, to issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS directing the respondents 3 to 5 to pay to the petitioner the service tax and the interest and penalty if any thereon, that may be demanded by the 2nd respondent from the petitioner in respect of the works contract service other than commercial nature rendered by the petitioner to the Government of Tamilnadu during the period from 01.04.2015 to 30.06.2017 within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court.”

2. Registry has raised objections on 05.08.2019 as hereunder:-

“prayer needs clarification, seeking the dual relief with giving option to the Hon’ble High Court, hence prayer to be curtailed with prayer consisting of single nature of prayer”.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant represented the papers with the following endorsement:-

(i) that it is elementary principle of law to seek any no. of reliefs in a single writ petition for the same cause of action, failing which further relief could not be claimed at a later date due to constructive res judicata;

(ii) The claim that the prayer is dual is without any legal basis as what has been sought is only alternative prayer;

(iii) The AE/JR, (to mean the passing official or Joint Registrar (writs)), has no right or powers to question the correctness of the prayer without any basis;

(iv) The Registry cannot raise objections, without citing any provision of law, on the whims and fancies of individual AE (to mean the passing official). It is very unfortunate that it is blindly signed up to JR without quoting any provision of law.

(v) Identical prayers in W.P.Nos. 1185, 17359 of 2018 and W.P.No.21170 of 2019 were passed and even the respondents/Hon’ble Court have not raised any such objections.

(vi) The objections being the result of misuse of powers by the officials, the same may be rejected and the writ petition to be passed.”

4. WP Sr.Nos.95296 & 98152 of 2019 were placed before the writ Court for maintainability. While considering the post objections and rules viz. Rules to Regulate Proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and taking note of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court P.Surendran Vs. State by Inspector of Police, reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 507 and in particular paragraph Nos.3 to 9 of the said judgment, a learned Single Judge at paragraph No.16 to 42 in WP Sr.Nos.95296 & 98152 of 2019 dated 22.08.2019 ordered as hereunder.

16. Therefore, maintainability issue is now being decided by this Court by a judicial order i.e., vide this order and hence P.Surendran’s case does not help advance the case of the petitioners in these two matters.

17. On the contrary, in the considered view of this Court, the procedure adopted by the Registry in the instant case, is in tune with P.Surendran’s principle laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court as the Registry has only placed the matters before this Court for judicial orders regarding maintainability and that is also on the basis of an endorsement made by learned counsel for petitioners as mentioned supra. For the purpose of clarity and specificity, the said endorsement of learned counsel for petitioners is reproduced infra an