Madras High Court Directs Registry to Periodically List Vacate Stay Petitions

Madras High Court Directs Registry to Periodically List Vacate Stay Petitions

In the case of R Radha v The State, the Madras High Court observed that numerous petitions seeking the vacation of interim stays had not been listed by the Registry for several months. The court suspected that this delay might be due to the collusion between the Court Registry staff and the parties involved in these cases.

To address the issue, Justice SM Subramaniam directed the Court Registry to ensure that "vacate stay petitions" and writ petitions with "interim orders in force" are listed regularly for hearings.

Additionally, the judge stated that the Madras High Court Judicial Registrar was obligated to oversee the listing of such cases and to be vigilant for any corrupt activities among the staff.

The High Court stated that it had recently observed multiple writ petitions with significant financial implications for the state that have not been listed for years, even though the interim orders are impacting the financial interests of the state and its organisations.

“One cannot brush aside the allegations against the Registry that such matters are not listed with the collusion of the Registry staff and the corrupt practices also cannot be overruled," the order stated.

The Court directed the Registry to conduct periodic inspections to ensure proper maintenance of case papers. The Court noted that there have been instances where case papers have been intentionally mixed up with other cases to prevent their listing.

During the hearing of two writ petitions challenging notices issued by the Commissioner of Coonoor Municipality to increase the rent for two shopkeepers, Justice Subramaniam declined to grant interim relief on the grounds that discretionary interim orders could not be considered binding precedents. The petitioners had cited an interim order of the Court in a separate case in support of their request for an interim stay on the notice of enhancement.

The court observed that when cases are kept pending with such interim orders in effect, the State incurs significant losses in revenue.

The Judicial Registrar was directed to keep a vigil on its staff and initiate immediate disciplinary action against any lapse or misconduct on their part.

The petitioners were represented by Advocate MA Vimal Mohan, while the State government was represented by Additional Government Pleader C Selvaraj. Additional Government Pleader R Kumaravel appeared on behalf of the respondent municipal authorities.