Registry may raise maintainability objections at scrutiny and cases shall be numbered subject to maintainability as decided by court.

For Mr.V.Vasanthakumar Respondent(s): Standing Counsel ORDER (Order of the Court was made by G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.)

The writ petition has been listed under the caption “for maintainability”.

2. The petitioner/party-in-person has preferred the writ petition seeking for the following relief:-

“Kind issuance of appropriate writs of mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, etc., to (1) identify the anonymous official(s) who sabotaged the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.516/2026 and, daringly passed the anonymous order in Diary No.64545/26 (2) quash the said anonymous order as being tantamount to a failure of constitutional Machinery in the High Court Administration (3) direct appropriate action against the said anonymous official(s) for the 7 counts of sabotage of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order and for the 6 counts of fraud and deceit, and (4) ban issuance of such anonymous orders which are aimed at preventing litigants from filing SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.”

3. The petitioner/party-in-person submitted that he had made an online filing of a writ petition, and after scrutiny, the Registry had issued anonymous directions, which are against the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

4. From the perusal of the materials, it is found that pursuant to the online filing of the writ petition made by the petitioner in-person, the Registry had pointed out certain defects which are as follows;

“1. It may be clarified as to how this writ petition is maintainable by filing this writ petition with volume contains 1 to 510 pages without filing an affidavit, synopsis, dates and events as per Madras High Court Writ Rules 2021, 2. It may be clarified the locus standi of the Party-in-

Person to file this writ petition.

3. The party-in-person seeking reliefs with numerous prayers in WP and WMP are not connected to each other -

may be clarified.

4. It may be stated as to how this writ petition is maintainable with indistinct prayer.

5. Numerous prayers seeking in WP and separate court fee for each and every prayer to be paid.

6. Cause title needs clarification for arraying the Vigilance Committee as Respondent-3 and also 9^th and 10^th Respondent arrayed without mentioned Department.

7. What is necessary to arrayed the Chief Secretary as 5^th respondent in cause title - may be clarified.

8. All Documents (C.A.1558 of 2026 and C.A.1493 of

2022 and etc....) mentioned in the prayer and also narrated in booklet to be filed in typedset with chronological order.

9. This writ petition filed as Party-in-person and hence as per Madras High Court (Conduct of proceedings by party-in-person) Rules 2019 Form-A & B with proof of identity and address to be filed and also the petitioner is bound to appear before the Committee for scrutiny.

10. In Booklet of Pdf - Pages 280 to 290 are missing as blank.”

5. According to the petitioner, the Registry cannot raise any query and whenever any petition is filed it is their duty to simply number the petition. We had taken enormous efforts to explain to the petitioner-in-person that already a detailed order has been passed by this Court dated 08.04.2026 in W.P.SR.No.49938 of 2026 where it is directed, that the Registry shall only verify all other required compliance for numbering the case, except maintainability and wherever the Registry has a doubt regarding maintainability, then the cases shall be numbered subject to maintainability and listed before the concerned Court having roster. The relevant portion of the order dated 08.04.2026 is extracted hereunder:-

“11. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the directions and circular already issued, we hereby direct the Registry not to refuse to number any case raising the issue of maintainability. If the cases filed a