Madras High Court Raps Registry For Delay In Listing 'Vacate Stay' Applications, Says Periodical Inspection & Thorough Enquiry Necessary

Article 226(3) of the Constitution says that when a party, against whom an ex parte interim order (in the nature of injunction or stay or any other manner) is made, makes an application for vacation of such order, the High Court should dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date of the application.

Justice SM Subramaniam noted that the pendency of such vacate stay petitions has caused huge financial loss to the State Exchequer and that parties should not be allowed to take advantage of these interim stays depriving the other party of its rights.

"Painfully, many such vacate stay petitions are not even listed for several months and years by the Registry, High Court. The injustice, huge financial loss to the State Exchequer and its organizations, irreparable loss to the parties are not taken into consideration by not listing those vacate stay petitions for disposal."

The court also pointed out that collusion by the Registry staff could not be ruled out and that such corrupt practices should not prevail. The court added that periodical inspections and thorough inquiry was necessary to ensure that case papers are properly maintained. The court also added that sometimes, the case papers are intentionally mixed up with other case papers to ensure that the cases remain unlisted.

"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. A periodical inspection and a thorough enquiry in this regard are certainly warranted in order to ensure that the case papers are maintained properly by the Registry and listed periodically, so as to ensure that neither of the parties suffer on account of the interim orders for longer period. These case papers are sometimes mixed up with the other cases papers intentionally, so as to ensure that the cases are not listed."

The court noted that the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court of Madras was duty bound to keep a vigil on the Registry staff dealing with case papers and in case any allegations were found, appropriate action should be initiated. The court also directed the Registry to ensure that the vacate stay petitions and other writ petitions where interim orders are in force are listed periodically to provide equal opportunity to parties against whom the orders were made. This, according to the court, is necessary to ensure justice and to avoid financial loss to the State and its organizations in the interest of the public.

The court was hearing two writ petitions challenging the notices issued by the Commissioner, Coonoor Municipality enhancing the rent of two shopkeepers. The rents were revised as per a Government Order issued by the Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department and based on the resolution passed by the Municipal Council.

The petitioners had relied upon an interim order passed by the court in an appeal filed by similarly placed shopkeepers granting interim stay on the notice on the condition to pay 50% of the enhanced rent during the pendency of the appeal.

The court however noted that the original writ petition was dismissed on merits and the interim order was passed on appeal. The court added that such discretionary interim orders could not be construed as binding precedents.

The court also emphasized that when matters are kept pending and when such interim orders are in force, the result would be loss of Revenue to the State which would in effect affect the welfare schemes in the interest of the public.

Citing precedents of the Supreme Court and various High Courts in the country, the court added that the time limit of two weeks as provided under Article 226(3) of the Constitution is mandatory and not directory.

The court was also informed by Advocate Elumalai that in similarly placed cases, a division bench of the Madras High Court had upheld the revision of rent and the validity of the Government order. Thus, the court observed that the interim orders relied upon by the petitioners were of no avail and that the court would be bound by the final orders in the appeal. Hence, both petitions were dismissed.

Case Title: R Radha and another v The State and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 124