Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 33347
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, CJ, G.Arul Murugan, J
M.Prakash – Appellant
Versus
The Additional Chief Secretary to Government Home (Court-V) Department Government of Tamilnadu – Respondent
W.P.No.14121 of 2026 | W.M.P.No.15356 of 2026
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. J.Balagopal
For Respondent(s): Mr. A.Edwin Prabakar, State Government Pleader for R1, Mr. S.Giridharan for R2 to R4
No legal right to Official Receiver tenure extension without High Court recommendation.
Headnote:Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Clause 5 of G.O.Ms.No.509, Home (Courts-V) Department dated 01.04.1997, the petitioner, appointed as Official Receiver for three years, sought extension of tenure rejected by the fourth respondent, with charge handed to Government Pleader. Court found no legal right for continuance absent High Court recommendation. Issues framed as challenge to rejection orders and request for interim continuance till new appointment. Ratio: Continuance requires High Court recommendation to Government; temporary handover to Government Pleader valid pending new appointment. Writ petition dismissed as bereft of merits; no costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to tenure rejection and interim continuance request (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. initial appointment and extension procedure per g.o. (Para 3) |
| 3. no legal right without high court recommendation; petition dismissed (Para 4) |
This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the proceedings of fourth respondent rejecting the request of petitioner for extension of tenure as Official Receiver and the consequential proceedings directing petitioner to hand over the charge to the Government Pleader, Principal District and Sessions Court, Krishnagiri.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner may be allowed to continue as Official Receiver at Krishnagiri till the new Official Receiver is appointed.
3. Petitioner was initially appointed as Official Receiver vide order dated 08.08.2022 for Krishnagiri District for a period of three years which expired in 2025. The continuance of the term of office can be done for a further period of three years by the Government on the recommendation of the Judges of the High Court, in consultation with the District Judge concerned as per Clause 5 of G.O.Ms.No.509, Home (Courts–V) Department dated 01.04.1997. The High Court has not recommended the case of petitioner for continuance in the office of Official Receiver. Till the new Official Receiver is appointed, the charge of Official Receiver has been temporarily handed over to the Government Pleader.
4. In view of the aforesaid, no legal right is available to petitioner to seek continuance in the office of Official Receiver. We find that the writ petition is bereft of merits and substance and therefore, it is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
