logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 4872 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras
Case No : WP. No. 24309 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G. ARUL MURUGAN
Parties : L.K. Charles Alexander Versus The Registrar General, Madras High Court, Chennai & Another
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: L.K. Charles Alexander (Appearing in person). For the Respondents: M. Kempraj, Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 03-07-2026
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules / Orders / Regulations, Sections Mentioned:
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India

2. Catch Words:
- mandamus
- writ
- listing
- Article 226

3. Summary:
The petitioner, an advocate, sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 to compel the High Court Registry to list twenty‑one pending matters immediately. The Court noted that the Registry’s listing process is a matter of administrative discretion and not subject to mandamus for individual convenience. It emphasized that allowing such petitions would disrupt judicial administration and equity among litigants. The Court outlined proper remedies: submitting a praecipe before the concerned bench or representing the issue to the Registrar (Judicial). Consequently, the petition was found to be an inappropriate use of Article 226. The Court dismissed the writ petition without costs.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed
Judgment :-

(Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to list the cases which have not been listed before the court for a long time, forthwith.)

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, CJ.

1. The petitioner, a practising advocate of this court, has approached this court in person, seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the Registry of the High Court, both at its Principal Seat and its Madurai Bench, to forthwith list a comprehensive catalogue of twenty-one distinct matters currently pending at various stages of adjudication.

2. According to the petitioner, several Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, Civil Revision Petitions, Criminal Original Petitions and Writ Petitions filed by him on behalf of his clients have failed to find a place in the daily cause-lists despite several letters of request addressed to the Registry. He laments that the administrative lapse of the Registry has caused him significant mental distress.

3. While this court holds a sympathetic regard for the professional anxieties of a young member of the Bar who feels answerable to his litigants, the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be utilized as an administrative tool to bypass the High Court’s established listing procedures.

4. The administrative authority to control the flow of litigation is an essential facet of judicial independence and a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to the Registry to bypass or disrupt the allocation of cases as per roster. An individual litigant or counsel has no vested or fundamental right to demand that their matter be listed ahead of litigations instituted prior in time, save through established exceptional protocols.

5. We must also take judicial notice of the Herculean administrative challenges faced by the High Court Registry. The listing of cases is not a mechanical exercise of data entry. The Registry processes thousands of fresh filings every week, alongside matters already pending. To maintain equity among litigants, cases must generally follow a chronological or category-wise queue.

6. If every advocate whose case is delayed is permitted to file a writ petition against the Registry, the court would be flooded with internal litigation, effectively paralyzing the administration of justice. Mandamus is a discretionary remedy reserved for enforcing a clear statutory right or correcting a palpable breach of legal duty. No such breach exists here.

7. The petitioner is not without a remedy, but his choice of forum and format is severely flawed. The procedural framework of this Court offers two robust avenues for addressing delayed listings:

                     (i) If a matter carries an element of genuine urgency or has drifted into procedural limbo, the standard, time-honored practice is for the counsel to submit a formal praecipe (mention memo) before the learned Judge or Bench holding the respective roster. It is for the Bench concerned, exercising its inherent judicial discretion, to determine whether the matter warrants an expedited listing.

                     (ii) Alternatively, the petitioner is at liberty to submit a comprehensive representation to the Registrar (Judicial), who is the custodian of the judicial business of the court and possesses the administrative mandate to rectify listing discrepancies, if any.

8. Equity demands that all litigants who knock on the doors of this court be treated with equal dignity and fairness. Allowing the petitioner to leapfrog over thousands of similarly situated litigants by judicial fiat would violate the principle of equal access to justice.

9. In the light of the legal position enunciated above, the relief sought cannot be granted within the parameters of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

10. Resultantly, the writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
 
  CDJLawJournal