ORDER :

Heard all the parties and perused the materials placed before this Court.

2.Seeking leave to file a Review Application in respect of the direction issued by this Court in paragraph 31 of the judgment dated 13.03.2020 in CMA.No.2337 of 2015 etc. batch, the Registry of this Court has come up with this Miscellaneous Petition.

3.For better appreciation, paragraph 31 of the judgment, which is sought to be reviewed by the petitioner, is extracted below:

“In view of the above, Registry is directed to circulate this order to all the District and Subordinate Courts dealing with Motor Accident Claims so as to scrupulously follow the same for awarding compensation and to the concerned authorities for issuing necessary directions to the Medical Boards in all the Districts of Tamil Nadu to issue the Disability Certificates as per the formats stipulated in the aforesaid Notification dated 04.01.2018, while assessing the percentage of permanent disability of the injured/claimant in the motor accident cases. The District and Subordinate Courts shall accept only such statutory certificates to fix the percentage of disability. A mere statement for disability shall not be considered for awarding compensation.”

4. According to the petitioner, since the judgment was passed in relation to the private disputes, the Registry of this court is a third party to the appeal proceedings and hence, the direction issued to the Registry to circulate a copy of the order amounts to an order passed in a public interest litigation and the same can be issued only by the Division Bench dealing with such matters. The petitioner further stated that the general supervision, co-ordination and control of all administrative works of the High Court are vested with the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this court and that, if this court feels that it is a matter of importance where a direction is required to be issued to the subordinate judiciary or executive, then, it has to be placed before the Division Bench dealing with Public Interest Litigations and therefore, such a direction cannot be issued by the learned single judge. To substantiate the said averments, the petitioner placed reliance on the following judgments of the Division Bench of this Court: (i)WA(MD)No.1061 of 2019 dated 23.10.2019 and (ii)WA.No.684 of 2020 dated 03.09.2020, copies of which are enclosed in the typed set of papers filed along with this petition.

5.At the outset, this court is of the view that the aforesaid two judgments relied on by the petitioner are not applicable to the present case, as they are factually different and distinguishable.

5.1 The first case in WA(MD)No.1061 of 2019 arises from the order passed in WP.(MD)No.16250 of 2012, which was filed to challenge the order dated 25.12.2011 passed by the fourth respondent and for consequential direction to permit the writ petitioner therein to discharge duties as part time over head tank operator in the fourth respondent Panchayat. When the writ petition was heard on 04.06.2019, there was power failure for about seven minutes, due to which, the court was put to inconvenience, because there was no emergency lamp available in the court room. Hence, the Registrar Administration was suo motu impleaded and certain queries were raised relating to non-availability of emergency light in the court hall, verification of genuineness of the employees' educational qualification, age limit, community certificates etc., directly touching upon the administrative affairs of the institution. After examining all the aspects, the Division Bench was of the view that the direction issued by the learned single judge was clearly outside the scope of the writ petition and the same also makes inroads into the administrative process adopted by the High Court headed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice. After holding so, the writ appeal was allowed and the directions issued by the learned single judge was set aside.

5.2 In the second case in WA.No.684 of 2020, which was filed by th