JUDGMENT

P. Naveen Rao, J.

1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to grant following reliefs:

"... to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, (a) declaring that the order dated 14.11.2022 in OSSR No. 7561/2022 passed by respondent No. 2 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and also (b) declare that returning unregistered Original Suit OSSR No. 7561/2022 for four times without passing any orders after hearing on objections and compliance is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, and (c) consequently, set aside the same by allowing this writ petition and pass any other order(s) that deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. The petitioner has arrayed the High Court, the I Additional Chief Judge, Secunderabad and the Chief Ministerial Officer (CMO), Office of I Additional Chief Judge, Secunderabad, as respondents.

3. On scrutiny, the Registry returned the writ petition raising following objection:

"When the suit was returned by the lower Court with objections for compliance please explain how the writ petition is entertainable against the same. Please clarify."

4. Learned Counsel for petitioner re-presented the writ petition with the following endorsement:

"I am sorry to say that the 'insensitive' Scrutiny Officer returned this W.P. after 5 days without applying mind on the cause of action. Respondent No. 2 is not passing order after hearing and returning for four times. Hence, W.P. is filed. Therefore, maintainable. If not satisfied, please post before Bench."

5. The Registry had placed the matter before this Bench for orders or maintainability of the writ petition.

6. Heard learned Counsel for petitioner. Learned Counsel would submit that what is under challenge is not a judicial order, but is a ministerial decision. Therefore, it is amenable to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and hence, writ petition is maintainable. He would submit that no decision is made by learned Trial Judge, but only returned the plaint directing the petitioner to comply with earlier objections. He would submit that once objections are complied, it is no more open to return the plain again and again and learned Trial Judge ought to have passed orders on judicial side.

7. He would submit that scrutiny of plaint is a ministerial exercise and the job assigned to CMO. On scrutiny, he may raise objections, but once the Counsel for plaintiff replied to the objections raised by CMO, it must be placed before the Court for decision on judicial side. Whereas, when the matter was placed before the Trial Judge, instead of passing orders on judicial side, he has returned the plaint to comply with the objections raised by CMO. Such course is not available to Trial Judge. It is ex facie illegal. He would further submit that it would amount to testing his decision on administrative side by sitting on judicial side, which is against basic tenants of law.

8. In support of his contentions, learned Counsel relied on following decisions.

(i) P. Surendran v. State by Inspector of Police, (2019) 9 SCC 154;

(ii) Dhulabhai and others v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and another, AIR 1969 SC 78;

(iii) Radhey Shyam and another v. Chhabi Nath and others, 2015 (4) ALD 139 (SC) : (2015) 5 SCC 423 and

(iv) Order of this Court dated 13.07.2018 in WP No. 40103 of 2017.

9. Having regard to reliefs sought and deposition to the affidavit in the writ- petition and submissions made by learned Counsel, following issue arises for consideration.

10. Whether the decision of learned Trial Judge returning the plaint on fourth occasion directing the plaintiff to comply with earlier objections is amenable to jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and whether office objection is sustainable?

11. Before dwelling into the issue, facts leading to filing this writ petition are noted hereunder:

Plaintiff instituted OSSR No. 7561 o