AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.N. Basha, J.—This W.P.SR is posted before us pursuant to the order dated 31.1.2012 of the First Bench, which reads as follows:
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is an Advocate appearing before us, against one of the Hon''ble Judges, viz., Hon''ble Ms.
Justice K. Suguna and the Registrar General. The same petitioner Advocate filed another writ petition against the Chief Justice of this Court.
When this case was called out, the petitioner Advocate submits that this Court should not hear the matter. Without making any observation, we
think it proper to place the matter before another Division Bench. Let this case be listed before the Division Bench hearing another similar writ
petition viz., W.P. No. 19894 of 2011."" Mr. V. Manikandan, learned counsel, who himself is the petitioner in the writ petition, submitted his
arguments elaborately on 6.2.2012 along with connected matters.
The petitioner, who is an Advocate, practising for the past ten years has sought to file the writ petition with the following prayer:
In the light of the facts narrated in the appended affidavit, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorarified mandamus quashing the impugned circular
dated 13.2.2007 issued by the first respondent''s sub-ordinate upon the second respondent''s instructions as being illegal, unconstitutional and
opposed to the law declared by the Supreme Court from time to time, and explicitly restrain the first respondent & her sub-ordinates from seeking
oral instructions from any individual judge other than the Chief Justice, and declare the practice of retaining motion cases by the registry for days,
months, & years and thereafter posting them without assigning it a case number under the caption ""for maintainability"" as obstructionist,
contemptuous, arbitrary, capricious and illegal.
The Registry returned the papers by raising the following queries:
(1)It may be stated how the writ petition is maintainable for the relief sought for therein against the second respondent.
(2) Prayer needs clarification.
(3) It may be stated that how a sitting High Court Hon''ble Judge is challenged in the writ petition. Subject to maintainability, the following defects
to be complied with: (1)Affidavit not attested.
(2)Batta not filed.
(3)Required copies not filed.
(4)Typed set not filed with relevant documents. The learned counsel represented the papers without compliance of the defects pointed out and
without assigning any reason for maintainability but merely Stating as follows:
Complied and represented on 23.11.2011
The Registry having not satisfied with the re-submission of papers, put up a note for maintainability and the same is posted before us as stated
supra.
From the averments made in the affidavit the sole contention of the petitioner is that whether or not a Judge can usurp the administrative powers
conferred upon the Chief Justice and interfere with the administration of the High Court and the Registry officials be permitted to usurp the power
of Judges sitting on the judicial side of the High Court. The cause of action for filing this WPSR appears to be that the petitioner is facing difficulties
in getting his cases numbered promptly by the Registry and that the cases are not posted for admission immediately after numbering.
The filing of the writ petition, numbering, posting for admission, etc., before this Chartered High Court is as per the Rules framed to regulate the
Proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, which was issued by virtue of Article 225 of the Constitution of India and of all other powers
enabling the High Court to regulate proceedings under the Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As per the said Rules issued in the year 1995,
the writ petition of any kind shall be supported by an affidavit containing the facts and grounds and a petition containing prayer, which shall be filed
in the office of the Registrar by the petitioner or his duly authorised Advocate. As per Rule 2, every such petition shall be set out the provision of
law under which it is made, the name and description of the petitioner and the respondent, the nature of relief sought and the affidavit must contain
grounds of the relief sought, other remedy, if any, available to the petitioner and if not availed of, the reasons therefore .The petition shall be signed
by the petitioner or his Advocate. Rule 3 states that every petition shall, soon after it is numbered, be posted for orders of the Court.
From the above provisions it is evident that mere filing of an affidavit with a petition signed by the party and advocate is not sufficient for
numbering a writ petition. The material particulars to be stated in the affidavit. It is also stated that every person making declaration shall be
described in such a manner that she/he can be identified clearly with full name, father''s name, age, religion, profession or trade and place of
residence of the deponent and shall be typed in both sides of the paper and the person making declaration shall sign his name at the foot of each
page. The statements made in the affidavits should clearly mention as to whether such statements are based on personal knowledge/information
and belief or on record and if the statements are based on information, the source of such information should be disclosed, and if the statements are
based on records, sufficient particulars of the records to be given. Similar is the procedure to be followed while filing miscellaneous petitions.
Sufficient number of copies of the affidavit, petition and the typed set of papers are also to be filed for serving notice to the respondents. From the
above rules it is crystal clear that for filing a writ petition, petitioner should follow certain mandatory procedures for getting his writ petition
numbered and posted for admission before the appropriate Court.
In the case on hand, in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner is not sure as to whether the second respondent Judge
instructed the Registry to record the procedures. In the absence of any positive assertion/knowledge of the petitioner, it is not proper on the part of
the petitioner, who is a practising Advocate, to implead the learned Judge as second respondent, merely on the basis of an alleged note submitted
by the Sub Assistant Registrar, Writ AE Section, giving instructions to the Appeal Examiners. Therefore impleading the second respondent in the
writ petition as a party respondent personally, is not an appreciable conduct on the part of the petitioner.
According to the petitioner, the Sub Assistant Registrar, Writ AE Section, issued the directions on the instructions of the learned Judge on
12.2.2007. The Sub Assistant Registrar, Writ AE Section has not been impleaded as party respondent in the writ petition to find out as to whether
the said directions were recorded as per the directions of the learned Judge. Therefore, the writ petition cannot be numbered in the absence of
proper and necessary party.
Even assuming that the Sub Assistant Registrar, Writ AE Section has noted the directions issued by the learned Judge, prima facie there is
nothing wrong to challenge the same by the petitioner. The so called circular contains directions to the Appeal Examiners to reject the petitions
without proper cause title, i.e, full address, the designation of the officer, the department and postal address and proper ranking of the respondents.
The prayer should contain all specific details regarding Government Order, circular, letter, etc., with number and date and sufficient copies to be
filed.
When a writ petition is filed against the Central Government, the Registry should check as to whether the subject matter is not covered by the
Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and an endorsement to that effect should be made by the counsel. The said instruction is based on the bar
of entertaining writ petition after creation of the Central Administrative Tribunal under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The Honourable
Supreme Court in the decision reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261 = 1997-2-L.W. 414 (L.Chandra kumar v. Union of India) has categorically held
that Central Government employees/Employees of the notified organisations of the Union of India are not entitled to approach the High Court
straight-away without approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and only after the orders passed by the CAT, the same can be
challenged before the High Court, which shall be heard by a Division Bench.
Similarly, whether a writ petition is to be posted for admission before the Single Judge or before the Division Bench is also to be seen by the
Registry while numbering the writ petition, as duplicate set is to be filed by the petitioner in such of those cases to be heard by the Division Bench,
such as Green Bench matters; cases filed against Judicial Officers, members of High Court staff and members of Judicial Ministerial Service; DRT
matters; writ petition challenging the State Consumer Redressal Commission orders; CMDA matters; caste/community certificate related matters;
cases arising out of State Human Rights Commission orders; etc. Therefore the said direction contained in the circular to verify this aspect is not
illegal.
The 5th direction is that all documents referred to in the writ petition and the impugned order shall be filed in the typed set in chronological
order also cannot be found fault with, as material documents are to be bound to be filed along with the writ petition, particularly when averments
regarding the said documents are made in the affidavit.
Regarding direction No. 6 i.e., whenever writ of mandamus is filed copy/copies of the representation given to the authorities with date to be
filed, is also in accordance with well accepted procedure/principle laid down by the Supreme Court, which held that before seeking a writ of
mandamus, the party must have approached the authority concerned and if there is inaction/delay, then only writ of mandamus can be filed.
The 7th direction to properly index the typed set of papers chronologically with page numbers is not only for the convenience of the Court, but
also for the counsel, who is relying on the documents to argue the case by referring the documents.
The last direction is that if the office had any doubt regarding maintainability of the writ petition for not filing of supporting document, a office
note is to be put up and act according to the direction of the Honourable Judges, cannot be termed as illegal as any doubt regarding maintainability
can be verified before numbering the writ petition. If the Registry still entertains doubt, maintainability note can be put up before the concerned
Judge initially by circulation. In several matters after going through the prayer, return and resubmission, if the learned Judge is convinced, even
without posting the matter to the Court for maintainability, the concerned Judges are directing the Registry to number the case. In case the
concerned Judge is not convinced with the reason stated by the counsel while resubmitting the papers, the matter is directed to be posted before
the Court and the petitioner/counsel can very well make submissions and convince the Court regarding maintainability, and after hearing the counsel
if the Court finds that the case is maintainable, directions are issued to the Registry to number the case and post for admission.
Thus, it is evident that none of the directions which the petitioner seeks to quash can be termed as arbitrary, unreasonable or irrational and the
same is followed in all cases and not with reference to the cases filed by the petitioner only.
The petitioner in paragraph 24 of the affidavit has stated that the Registry is raising ""stupid queries"". If any query raised is ""stupid"" according to
the petitioner, he can very well mention the same before the learned Portfolio Judge and if it is so mentioned, the learned Judges are always
directing the Registry to post the matter before Court for maintainability.
The plea of alternate remedy raised by the Registry is found fault with by the petitioner. The same is stated in the Rules framed under Article
225 read with Article 226 as stated supra. Even assuming that there is any practical difficulty in getting any case numbered or even after numbering
if there is any delay in posting the case for admission, it is for the petitioner to address a letter to the Registry and the Registry will take appropriate
steps. In this case, petitioner has not approached the Registry with a written representation. Instead of redressing his grievance, if any, on the
administrative side, the petitioner has chosen to file this petition and challenge the so called instructions. The said procedure adopted by the
petitioner is only for the purpose of finding fault with the Registry, instead of redressing his grievance, if any, at the Registry level.
On perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the affidavit filed by the petitioner is also not according to the rules, as the rule
contemplates the affidavit must contain the name of the deponent, father''s name, age, religion and residential address. In this case even though the
petitioner has mentioned his name, father''s name, age and religion, the place of residence is not mentioned. Petitioner has also not mentioned his
correct name in the affidavit. In the affidavit and petition, petitioner has mentioned his name as ""V. Manikandan"". In the writ petition, wherein the
petitioner is appearing as counsel for the petitioner in the connected matter disposed of today, his name is mentioned as ""Manikandan Vathan
Chettiar"". Thus, there is discrepancy with regard to his name itself.
All these facts can be questioned by the Registry before numbering a writ petition and Rule 3 clearly says, soon after the writ is numbered the
same be posted for the orders of the Court. Hence the WPSR filed by the petitioner, which is posted for maintainability by the Registry, cannot be
found fault with. If the averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit are accepted, any petition, whether it is maintainable before the Court or
before the Tribunal, even if it is defectively filed, are to be automatically numbered. If the said procedure is followed, the regulatory power
conferred to the High Court under Article 225 and 226 of the Constitution of India, will be of no meaning, which the petitioner should have
ascertained before filing this kind of petition, finding fault with the Registry and the learned Judge. For the above said reasons, we are of the view
that the maintainability issue raised by the Registry is sustainable and the WPSR is rejected. It is further ordered that the Registry should
scrupulously follow the Rules framed under Articles 225 read with 226 of the Constitution of India and the circulars issued by the Honourable
Chief Justice, before numbering any writ petition and only if the papers are in order, the same be numbered and posted for admission before the
appropriate Court.