Madras High Court
A.Pattabi vs The Deputy Registrar (Writ) on 15 March, 2018
Bench: M.Sathyanarayanan, R.Hemalatha
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 15.03.2018
RESERVED ON: 01.03.2018
DELIVERED ON: 15.03.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA
W.A(MD)SR.No.2630 of 2018
A.Pattabi ... Appellant/
Writ Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Deputy Registrar (Writ),
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai ? 625 023.
2.The Registrar (Judicial),
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai - 625 023.
3.Justice S.S.Sundar,
Judge,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court/14.11.2017,
C/o.The Registrar (General),
Madras High Court,
Chennai ? 600 104. ... Respondents/
Respondents
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order
dated 14.11.2017 passed in W.P(MD)SR.No.62427 of 2017.
!For Appellant : Mr.P.Balasubramaniyan
^For Respondent:
:JUDGMENT
The writ appeal in W.A(MD)SR.No.2630 of 2018 is against the order dated 14.11.2017, passed in W.P(MD)SR.No.62427 of 2017.
2. The writ petitioner is the appellant and it is relevant to extract hereunder the main prayer in the writ petition as well as interim prayers sought for by him:
?(i) calling for the records pertaining to the notice HR/Leg/17 dated 12.08.2017 of the 2nd respondent herein and Quash the impugned notice HR/Leg/17 dated 12.08.2017 and consequently, direct the 9th respondent herein, viz., the Director of CBI, Chennai to investigate into the totality of the fact of the offences of ragging by the R10 to R14 herein from 06.07.2016 in the SSVM.Girls Marticulation Higher Secondary School and offence of eve-teasing by the R15 to R20 herein against my daughter P.Jananni on/from 14.08.2016 in the TNPL Housing Colony premises at Kagithapuram in Karur District ? 639 136 and committed offences by the officials of M/s.TNPL from 14.08.2016 to till date which heavily affected the fundamental Rights of Right to Education of my daughter P.Jananni and to file a report thereon within 60 days of receipt of this court order and to pass any such further or other orders.
(ii) To stay the impugned notice HR/Leg/17 dated 12.08.2017 of the 2nd respondent herein pending final disposal of the above Writ petition and
(iii) To Direct the District Collector of Karur and Chief Educational Officer of Karur to ensure the admission of my daughter P.Jananni in XIIth standard Biology group in a Government or a Government aided or a Private school in Karur District during the academic year 2017 ? 2018 and safe, secured and peaceful continued studies of my daughter P.Jananni in XII th std., and thus render justice.?
[extracted as such.]
3. The Registry has returned the papers for certain compliance and it is relevant to extract hereunder the defects pointed out by the Registry and the second return dated 01.11.2017:
?WP.(MD).SR.No.62427/2017The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.P.Balasubramanian, has already been deprecated by this Honourable court by order dated 06-06-2017 in W.P(MD)SR.No.11781 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)SR.No.11783 of 2017, for filing frivolous petitions and has also been directed to pay a cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only).
The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:
?After the dismissal of his earlier attempt to get fanciful reliefs under Section 482 Cr.P.C., P.Balasubramaniyan is now attempting to re-enter through the window of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also seen that P.Balasubramaniyan has enrolled as an Advocate in the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu. An Advocate belongs to a very noble profession and when he drafts pleadings, he is required to act with great circumspection, as he is in the position of an Officer of the Court. He cannot file reckless pleadings as in this case.
8. In the result, this petition is dismissed at the SR stage itself with costs of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) payable by P.Balasubramanian to the Legal Services Authority attached to this Court within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.?
Whether the above order has been complied or not has to be stated. Petitioner pleads in this petition to take action against the person who teased his daughter. Without any relevancy to the prayer sought for in the present petition, the petitioner has filed the letter dated 12.08.2017 issued by the Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Limited directing him to vacate the quarters. The averments in the affidavit runs contra to the pleadings filed by the petitioner.
The prayer and enclosures filed by the petitioner do not correlate. Hence returned.?
[extracted as such.]
4. The appellant/writ petitioner is represented by Mr.P.Balasubramanian, Advocate, C/o.Na.Palaniyandi, Advocate, No.8, Lawyers Chamber, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai ? 625 023 and he made re-presentation of the returned papers pertaining to the said writ petition on 06.11.2017 and it is relevant to extract hereunder the paragraph 2:
?2. Their dismissal and directed me to pay a cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) by the Justice P.N.Prakash J amounts to his Dishonesty, delinquency and abuse of his discretionary power given to him by the constitution of India. Thus, the said order dated 06.06.2017 in W.P(MD)SR.No.11781/2017 and W.M.P(MD)SR.No.11783/2017 is Impugned and therefore the said impugned order dated 06.06.2017 in WP(MD)SR No.11781/2017 and W.M.P(MD)SR No.11783 of 2017 is Challenged in WA.(MD)SR No.30600 of 2017.?
[extracted as such.]
5. The Registry has posted the writ petition in W.P(MD)SR.No.62427 of 2017 before the Honourable Mr.Justice S.S.Sundar for maintainability. The learned Judge, vide order dated 14.11.2017, has found that the objections raised by the Registry are sustainable and hence, the writ petition in the present form is not maintainable and therefore, dismissed the same at the SR stage.
6. The learned Judge in paragraph 8 of the order observed that the learned Counsel for the petitioner, namely, P.Balasubramanian, is not able to convince the Court regarding the maintainability of the writ petition for two distinct reliefs arising out of the different cause of action and also pointed out that without challenging the notice for vacating the quarters, further notice which is consequential to the previous notice is challenged. It was also observed that the relief of Mandamus is prayed for only on the basis of the complaint lodged by the appellant herein/writ petitioner and his daughter before the official respondents and the Chief Educational Officer or the District Collector are not competent to ensure admission to his daughter in any school as prayed for and such a direction cannot be given merely on the basis of bald allegations made against the respondents 2 and 3, namely, the General Manager HR, M/s.Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Limited, Kagithapuram Post, Karur District ? 639 136 and the Chief of Vigilance and Security of the said company. It was further observed in the said paragraph that a reading of the affidavit indicates that the writ petitioner therein is making unsubstantiated allegations against the officials of M/s.Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Limited, Kagithapuram Post, Karur District and other officials for their inaction without indicating their statutory obligations for granting such relief.
7. The writ petitioner challenging the legality of the said order, has filed W.A(MD)SR.No.2630 of 2018.
8. The Registry on scrutinising the papers has raised the following objections:
1.?It may be stated as to how the Honourable Judge DR(Writ), The Registrar (Judicial) are arrayed as Respondents and also they are not a party in the writ proceedings.
2.Cause title to be corrected as per the impugned order in W.P(MD) SR.No.62427 of 2017.
3.Preamble portion of the grounds to be corrected (I, II)
4.Grounds operative portion (I&II) to be corrected.
5.Batta to be filed with impugned order cause title.
6.Residential Address of the Attested Advocate to be provided in the Vakalat and Affidavit.
7.Cause title to be Corrected as per the impugned order in Typedset and WA Grounds copy to be provided in the Typed Set I & II.
8.White Copy to be filed.
9.Condone the delay petition and affidavit (I&II) to be filed.
10.Memo of valuation caption to be provided in Grounds I &II (last Page)
11.Stay petition I & II Cause title and prayer to be corrected, Counsel to be signed
12.Affidavit I &II Cause title and operative portion to be corrected.
13.Caveat Endorsement to be made on the stay petition back side.
14.Writ Appeal endorsement to be provided as per circular.?
[extracted as such.]
9. The learned Counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner has represented the papers with the following endorsements:
?It is submitted that all the papers in Writ Appeal W.A(MD) SR.No.2630 of 2018 filed on 19.1.2018 were returned by the Assistant Registrar (Writ) of Madurai Bench of Madurai High Court on 25.1.2018 with 1-14 remarks. They are being represented with the due explanation/compliance as follows:-
1. The Return Remark No.1 of the Assistant Registrar (Writ) of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, dated 25.01.2018 in W.A.(MD)SR.No.2630 of 2018 runs, ?It may be stated as to how the Hon'ble Judge, DR(Writ), the Registrar(Judicial) are arrayed as Respondents and also they are not a party in the writ proceedings?.
2. The return remark No.2 of the Assistant Registrar(Writ) of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, dated 25.01.2018 in W.A.(MD)No.SR.No.2630 of 2018 runs, ?Cause title to be corrected as per the impugned order in W.P.(MD)SR.No.62427 of 2017?.
3. The first segment of the return Remark No.7 of the Assistant Registrar(Writ) of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, dated 25.01.2018 in W.A.(MD)SR.No.2630 of 2018 runs, ?Cause title to be corrected as per the impugned order in the typed set?.
4. The first segment of the return remark No.11 of the Assistant Registrar(Writ) of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, dated 25.01.2018 in W.A.(MD)SR.No.2630 of 2018 runs, ?Stay petition I & II cause title to be corrected?.
5. The first segment of the Return remark No.12 of the Assistant Registrar(Writ) of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, dated 25.01.2018 in W.A.(MD)SR.No.2630 of 2018 runs, ?Affidavit I & II cause title to be corrected?.
Explanation/Compliance of the above said No.1,2,7,11 & 12 Return Remarks:-
1. It is pertinent to note that in the order dated 13.10.2008 in M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2008 in W.P.(MD)No.1619 of 2006, wherein Mr.P.Balasubramaniyan has been the petitioner in both the petitions, the Division Bench Justice K.Ravirajapandian J and P.P.S.Janarthana Raja J had observed on page No.0144569 & 0144570 of the certified copies of the order in para No.8,9,10 & 11 as to, ?8. M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2008 in W.P.(MD)No.1619 of 2006 is filed seeking the following relief:
For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to order the copyist section to issue three numbers of Xerox certified copies of documents requested in C.A.No.5391 of 2007, dated 02.11.2007 including docket entire in W.P.(MD)No.1619 of 2006 under the provision of order II Rule 3(7) (I) of A.S.Rules 1965 of Madras High Court, which reads, ?to order supply to parties to a proceedings.
(i) Records duly certified as correct copies? in the interest of fair Administration of Justice, Principles of Natural Justice and thus render justice?.
9. the said prayer has been sought for against the respondent-Chairman and Managing Director, Chief General Manager(F&A) and the Director(operations) of M/s.Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Limited. The other writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.8882 of 2008 has been filed by arraying the Assistant (Computer) C.D.Copyist Section and Assistant Registrar(Administration) of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court with the following prayers:
?(1) to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records any quashing the impugned remarks in the return of the copy Application S.R.No.2612 of 2008 the date 09.06.2008.
(2) to issue a Writ of Mandamus to issue Certificate copies of one No. of Additional type set of papers 1-313 pages and description of documents 1-4 pages.
(3) to award me cost of this petition.
(4) to award me un-liquidated Compensation in terms of money for the Lawful omission and unlawful acts of the Respondents during the course of their employment with the judiciary under the provision of English Common Law.
(5) to award me a compensation of Rs.50,000/- from each respondents for untold hardship, mental worries and mental agony which resulted by the wrongful and improper act of the respondents 1 and 2 herein.
(6) to pass any other order(s), direction(s), relief and remedy which deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in the interest of fair administration of law and justice, Principle of Natural Justice and thus render Justice.?
10. The relief sought for in M.P.No.1 of 2008 is the first and second relief sought for in main Writ petition No.8882 of 2008. However, three respondents in M.P.No.1 of 2008 are nothing to do with the relief sought for in the said Miscellaneous petition. Hence, the application cannot be maintained. This aspect of the matter has been accepted by the petitioner in person.
11. The writ petition No.8882 of 2008 in Admitted today(vide separate order)?:
12. Similarly in W.P.(MD)SR.No.62427 of 2017 the Deputy Registrar(Writ) of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court returned the petition with certain remarks. They were duly explained & complied with and represented by the petitioners counsel on record.
Despite/Dissatisfied with the due explanation and compliance, the cause in W.P.(MD)SR.No.62427 of 2017 was listed before the R3 herein under the caption?For Maintainability? on 24.11.2017 and the R3 herein had dismissed the same on 24.11.2017 at the SR Stage. For listing the cause in W.P.(MD)No.SR.62427 of 2017 before the 3rd respondent herein 24.11.2017 under caption ?For maintainability?, The 1st and 2nd Respondent herein Viz., the Deputy Registrar(Writ) and Registrar(Judicial), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court are also held liable and responsible. Therefore, in challenging the impugned order dated 14.11.2017 at the SR stage before numbering and sending any notice to the 1-20 respondents therein, only the 1,2 & 3 respondents herein are held liable and responsible. Hence, the cause title with DR(Writ), the Registrar(Judicial) and Judge S.S.Sundar of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court are arrayed as respondents in the Writ Appeal even though they are not a party in Writ petition W.P.(MD)SR.No.62427 of 2017.
13. It is pertinent to note that.
(i) according to the law U/Article 20(i) of the Constitution of India 1950, Violation of law inforce, without damage itself amounts to convictable crime & the law breakers are to be subjected to a penality which might have been inflicted within the law inforce at the time of commission of the offence?.
(ii) according to the law U/s.220 of I.P.C., 1860 Commitment for trial or confinement by a person having authority, who knows that he is acting contrary to law is an offence.
(ii) According to the law U/s.219 of I.P.C., 1860 Public servant in a judicial proceeding corruptly making and pronouncing an order, report, verdict or decision which he knows to be contrary to law, is an offence.
(iii) According to the law U/s.166 of I.P.C., 1860, public servant disobeying a direction of the law with intent to cause injury to any person is an offence.
(iv) According to the law U/s. 21 of I.P.C., 1860, the respondents 1, 2 & 3 herein are public servants committed the above said offences in W.P.(MD)SR.No.62427 of 2017.
(v) According to the Dicey's Rules under Constitution of India, the executive and legislative powers of the state and the Union have to be exercised in accordance with the provisions of the constitution. The Government and the public officials are not above the law. The Maxim ?the king can do no wrong? does not apply in India. There is equality before the law and equal protection of laws. The Government and public authorities are also subjected to the jurisdiction of ordinary Courts of law and for similar wrongs they are to be tried and punished similarly. They are not immune from ordinary legal process nor any provision made regarding separate administrative Court and Tribunals?. Therefore the 1, 2 & 3 respondents of the cause title in the writ appeal and its accompaniments in W.A.(MD)SR.No.2630 of 2018 are apt and appropriate.
6. The return remark No.3 of the Assistant Registrar(Writ) of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, dated 25.01.2018 in W.A.(MD).SR.No.2630 of 2018 runs, ?Preamble portion of the ground to be corrected,? Compliance/Explanation-Complied with.
7. The return remark No.4 of the Assistant Registrar(Writ) of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, dated 25.01.2018 in W.A.(MD).SR.No.2630 of 2018 runs, ?Grounds operative portion (I&II) to be corrected?, Compliance/Explanation corrected and the corrected and clean copy of the page No.15, 16 & 17 of the grounds of Writ Appeal is annexed/filed
8. The return remark No.5 of the Assistant Registrar(Writ) of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, dated 25.01.2018 in W.A.(MD).SR.No.2630 of 2018 runs, ?Batta to be filed with impugned Order cause title:
Explanation/Compliance: With reference to the cause title in W.P.(MD)SR.No.62427 of 2017, Batta for 1-20 respondents were paid in W.P.(MD)SR.No.62427 of 2017. In the present Writ Appeal Batta for 1-3 respondents herein are paid along with the accompanied memorandum of Writ Appeal.
9. The return remark No.6 of the Assistant Registrar(Writ) of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, dated 25.01.2018 in W.A.(MD).SR.No.2630 of 2018 runs, ?Residential Address of the attested Advocate to be provided in the Vakalat and Affidavit?.
Explanatiion/Compliance: Complied with
10. The 2nd segment of the return Remark No.7 of the Assistant Registrar(Writ) of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, dated 25.01.2018 runs, ?W.A.grounds copy to be provided in the typed set I & II?. Explanation/Compliance: Complied with.
11. The return remark No.8 of the Assistant (Writ) of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, dated 25.01.2018 in W.A.(MD)No.2630 of 2018 runs, ?White copy to be filed?.
Compliance/Explanation : White Copies to the R1, R2 & R3 in W.A.(MD)SR No.2630 of 2018 are already filed along with the accompaniments of the Memorandum of grounds of writ appeal.
12. The return remark No.9 of the Assistant Registrar(Writ) of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, dated 25.01.2018 in W.A.(MD)SR.No.2630 of 2018 runs, ?Condone the delay petition and Affidavit (I&II) to be filed?. Compliance/Explanation: Complied with.
13. The return Remark No.10 of the Assistant Registrar(Writ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, dated 25.01.2018 in W.A.(MD)SR.No.2630 of 2018 runs, ?Memo of Valuation Caption to be provided in Grounds I & II (Last page), Explanation/Compliance: Complied with.
14. The 2nd segment of the return remark No.11 of the Assistant Registrar(Writ), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, dated 25.01.2018 in W.A.(MD)SR.No.2630 of 2018 runs, ?stay petition I & II prayer to be corrected, counsel to be signed.?
Explanation/Compliance: Stay Petition prayer is already in Order. Counsel made his Signature in the Stay petition.
15. The 2nd segment of the return remark No.12 of the Assistant Registrar(Writ), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court dated 25.01.2018 in W.A.(MD)SR.No.2630 of 2018 runs, ?Affidavit I & II operative portion to be corrected?.
Explanation/Compliance: Complied with.
16. The Return Remark No.13 of the Assistant Registrar(Writ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court dated 25.01.2018 in W.A.(MD)SR.No.2630 of 2018 runs,?Caveat Endorsement to be made on the stay petition back side? Explanation/Compliance: Caveat Endorsement is already made just below the prayer of the Stay petition.
17. The return Remark No.14 of the Assistant Registrar (Writ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court dated 25.01.2018 in W.A.(MD)SR.No.2630 of 2018 runs, ? Writ Appeal endorsement to be provided as per circular? Explanation/Compliance: Complied with?
[extracted as such]
10. The Registry on going through the endorsements, still entertains a doubt as to the maintainability of the writ appeal and put up a maintainability note pointing out that as per Circular in R.O.C.No.48999- A/2016/F1, out of 14 returns, 7 returns, viz., Sl.Nos.1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 11 and 12 are not complied with. Accordingly, W.A(MD)SR.No.2630 of 2018 is posted before this Court ?For Maintainability?.
11. Heard the submissions of Mr.P.Balasubramanian, learned Counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner, who would submit that the daughter of the appellant/writ petitioner is subjected to repeated ragging and harassment and therefore, the appellant/writ petitioner was constrained to shift her to various schools and the respondents 2 and 3 had caused whole trouble and he has also undertaken to vacate his official quarters bearing No.E-14, TNPL Housing Colony, Kagithapuram Post, Karur District ? 639 136, after completion of eve-teasing case and therefore, one of the prayers is sought for by him for quashing the communication of the second respondent, dated 12.08.2017, in and by which, he has been called upon to vacate the quarters.
12. The learned Counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner also sought to justify the consequential prayer directing the ninth respondent, namely, the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, Chennai, to investigate into the totality of the facts of the offences of ragging by the respondents 10 to 14 on 06.07.2016 in S.S.V.M. Girls Matriculation Higher Secondary School and the offences of eve-teasing by the respondents 15 to 20 against his daughter on and from 14.08.2016 in the TNPL Housing Colony premises at Kagithapuram, Karur District and the offences committed by the officials of M/s.TNPL from 14.08.2016 to till date have heavily affected the fundamental rights of his daughter to have education, etc.
13. It has been pointed out to the learned Counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner as to how the prayer to quash the communication of the second respondent dated 12.08.2017, in and by which, the appellant/writ petitioner was directed to vacate his official quarters, is connected with the investigation sought for by the Central Bureau of Investigation with regard to the ragging of his daughter and the learned Counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner is unable to come out any plausible explanation.
14. It is also pertinent to note at this juncture that as per the cause title in the writ petition in W.P(MD)SR.No.62427 of 2017, 20 respondents were arrayed; whereas in the cause title in writ appeal in W.A(MD)SR.No.2630 of 2018, only three respondents are arrayed, namely, (1) The Deputy Registrar (Writ), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai ? 625 023; (2) The Registrar (Judicial), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai ? 625 023; and (3) S.S.Sundar, Judge, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court/14.11.2017, C/o. The Registrar (General), Madras High Court, Chennai ? 600 104 and therefore, the Registry has entertained the doubt.
15. The learned Counsel on record appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner, namely, Mr.P.Balasubramanian, Enrollment No.1395/2016, has developed a habit to make scandalous, defamatory and unsubstantiated allegations against the Presiding Officers of the Subordinate Courts and also against the former Judges of this Court and also against the sitting Judges of this Court and the said conduct has been elaborately dealt with in W.A(MD)SR.45807 of 2017.
16. It appears that the learned Counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner took a conscious decision not to mend his ways despite his claim that he is a practising lawyer of this Court.
17. This Court in the earlier paragraphs has extracted paragraph 2 of the endorsements, dated 06.11.2017 made by the learned Counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner, wherein he would state that ?Their dismissal and directed me to pay a cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) by the Justice P.N.Prakash J amounts to his Dishonesty, delinquency and abuse of his discretionary power given to him by the constitution of India? and further pointed out that ?he has preferred an appeal against the order dated 06.06.2017 in W.P(MD)SR.No.11781/2017 and W.M.P(MD)SR.No.11783/2017, in WA.(MD)SR No.30600 of 2017.?
18. It is to be pointed out that W.A(MD)SR.No.30600 of 2017 was also rejected on the ground of maintainability by a Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 09.02.2018.
19. As already pointed out, the cause title as to the array of the respondents in the present writ appeal is totally different from the writ petition in W.P(MD)SR.No.62427 of 2017, which is the subject matter in this writ appeal.
20. The Memorandum of Grounds of writ appeal is drafted by Mr.P.Balasubramanian and the third respondent is shown as ?S.S.Sundar, Judge, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court/14.11.2017, C/o. The Registrar (General), Madras High Court, Chennai ? 600 104?.
21. The learned Counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner though claims to be a practising Advocate, lacks minimum and basic courtesy to show respect to a Judge of this Court and not even put a prefix 'Mr./Thiru.' and this shows his scant respect and utter disregard to a constitutional functionary and it is highly condemnable and deprecated.
22. It is not as if for the first time, the learned Counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner is indulging in this kind of act and is repeatedly doing so wilfully and deliberately and such instances have been pointed out in the judgment in W.A(MD)SR.No.45807 of 2017.
23. In the considered opinion of this Court, the second portion of the prayer is nothing to do with the first portion of the prayer and the learned Judge in paragraph 8, has noted the same and rightly arrived at the conclusion to uphold/sustain the objections raised by the Registry and held that the writ petition in the present form is not maintainable.
24. This Court finds no error or infirmity in the said reasons assigned by the learned Judge and therefore, this Court is upholding the objections raised by the Registry as to the maintainability of this writ appeal in W.A(MD)SR.No.2630 of 2018.
25. In the result, W.A(MD)SR.No.2630 of 2018 is rejected as not maintainable. .