Lordship v parthiban j -6.This Court is unable to appreciate the conduct of the litigants by invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, without waiting for a reasonable time to lapse. This Court unfortunately has been witnessing in the recent past that plethora of ‘Mandamus’ Writ Petitions being filed at the drop of a hat for all kinds of relief as a matter of course taking away the precious time of this Court from focusing on a quality litigation in true exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction. The Writ Courts have been deluged with ‘Mandamus’ petitions converting the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court into a ‘Direction Factory’ or ‘Machine’ producing clichéd, stereotype order/hackneyed directions which hardly require any application of mind.
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 19.01.2021
CORAM
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 19.01.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN
W.P.(MD) No.617 of 2021
G.Soundarrajan .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Registrar,
Office of the District Registrar,
Trichy.
2.The Sub Registrar,
K.Sathanur Sub Registrar Office,
Trichy District.
3.Jailani Beevi .. Respondents
PRAYER:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to cancel the documents pertaining to document No.2224/2010 and 2225/2010 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein on the basis of the petitioner representation dated 11.12.2020 within the time stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Jameel Arasu
For R1 & R2 : Mr.K.Sathiya Singh
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
According to the petitioner, he purchased two plots having a total extent of 4800 sq.fts., for a valuable consideration. The sale has also been registered. There appears to be a dispute as to the title of the property and there is a rival claim by the neighbour of the petitioner. In the said circumstances, the petitioner appears to have filed a suit in O.S.No.642/2012 before the 2nd Additional District Munsif Court, Trichy seeking permanent injunction against the third party. According to the petitioner, due to certain financial requirements, he had decided to sell the property to a third party.
2.While the matter stood thus, the 3rd respondent, who was also making a claim to the title, had given an undertaking in writing on 30.11.2018 that she has no right whatsoever in those two plots, which is the subject matter of dispute. In the meanwhile, the suit filed by the petitioner has been decreed as ex parte in his favour.
3.Subsequently, the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent for making proper entry in the revenue records about the ex parte decree passed by the civil Court and to cancel the registration of documents on behalf of the 3rd party. According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent has not acted upon and therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.
4.In the said circumstances, the petitioner has submitted a detailed representation to the respondents on 11.12.2020 seeking to cancel the documents and in pursuance of the petitioner’s representation, dated 11.12.2020, the 1st respondent issued a notice dated 08.12.2020, directing the petitioner to attend enquiry on 04.01.2021. The petitioner appeared before the 1st respondent for enquiry and submitted all the documents. The present grievance of the petitioner is not in regard to the submission of documents, but the inaction on the part of the authorities from 04.01.2021 and therefore, he is before this Court.
5.This Court is not happy about the filing of the present writ petition for the reason that the enquiry was held only recently on 04.01.2021 and immediately thereafter, the petitioner appears to have filed the present writ petition seeking a direction from this Court. When the competent authority is looking into the matter and conducting the enquiry, he ought to be given reasonable time to complete the enquiry and before taking a decision in the matter, needlessly, the petitioner is before this Court without giving a reasonable time for the authority to pass orders.
6.This Court is unable to appreciate the conduct of the litigants by invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, without waiting for a reasonable time to lapse. This Court unfortunately has been witnessing in the recent past that plethora of ‘Mandamus’ Writ Petitions being filed at the drop of a hat for all kinds of relief as a matter of course taking away the precious time of this Court from focusing on a quality litigation in true exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction. The Writ Courts have been deluged with ‘Mandamus’ petitions converting the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court into a ‘Direction Factory’ or ‘Machine’ producing clichéd, stereotype order/hackneyed directions which hardly require any application of mind.
7.It has lately become a routine exercise of the Writ Court to pander to the ‘Mandamus Mania’ to keep the bar in good humour. Ultimately, at the end of the day, a Writ Court hardly finds sufficient time to engage itself in settlement of serious lis of the parties due to its predominant occupation on a trivia most of the time. In fact, the experience of the Writ Court is that directions to various authorities to take decisions in regard to the grievances projected by the litigants, have invariably get rebirth and the lis is back on the lap of this Court for adjudication once again.
8.This pernicious and pandering trend must stop somewhere and sometime to save the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court from sliding into the abyss of “Direction Court” not worthy of its status and relevance. In fact, this trend, apart from belittling the constitutional jurisdiction of this Writ Court, lately has to an extraordinary measure been encouraging the present younger generation of lawyers to resort to Mandamus litigations through a contrived route as a fast track to achieve instant result for their brief at the cost of valuable Court’s time, and thereby depriving the litigants of actual relief/s deserved by them, at the first instance.
9.Further, in the process of summary disposal of the Writ Petition, by skimming the surface of the litigations the Courts have many a time forced to relegate its intellect and scholarship to the back-burner on expediencies. The constitutional courts have been woefully reduced to a below par performer allowing mediocrity to creep into the system of Writ governance. The prerogative writ jurisdiction of the constitutional court, has over a period of time degenerated into mundane and insipid exercise of power. The proliferation of Mandamus litigations on a phenomenal scale is a crass reminder to the institution that it is high time the constitutional Courts did corrective judicial introspection and discourage any attempt by obsessive “Direction Seekers” from plummeting the exalted jurisdiction of the Courts into a barren, pedestrian and stupefied judicial edifice.
10.Moreover, the ominous “Mandamus Culture” in full swing off late sometimes produces the desired result instantly but in the long run the institutional standards of constitutional Courts is being compromised to a large measure. It is common knowledge in the state that the authorities at various positions taking cue from the trend are by and large not inclined to discharge their official responsibility or function, unless a direction is issued by the Courts on almost all matters, which should have been decided and disposed of routinely by them in a time bound manner. The trend has reached an alarming level today that a representation is submitted to the authority for his action and simultaneously a Writ of Mandamus is filed seeking direction to dispose of the representation.
11.What an apology state of affairs of functioning of the constitutional courts, that every representation of variegated kind from a citizen to the authorities is generally not acted upon, unless a direction from the Courts to make them act. The ill effect of the ‘scourge’ has uniformly made the administrative authorities at various levels complacent to the point of being apathetic when citizens approach them for redressal of their grievances, as no decision taken on their representations, promptly and on their own accord and wait for a mandate in the form of a direction from the Courts. In the unfortunate bargain, the Courts have been reduced as appendages to the administrative hierarchy of the Government, as every official of the Government today expects a direction from the Court as part of the administrative functions. It is disquieting that the important jurisdiction of the Writ Court has been allowed to be hijacked by ‘Direction Seekers’ thriving on the crest of fast track disposals behind the cloak of expediencies, blaming inordinate delay in having the matters adjudicated on merits by the Courts.
12.The excuse of ‘delayed justice’ is no doubt real, but the affliction of backlog is being constantly addressed and monitored at various levels and several remedial measures have been put in place towards reduction of the pendency rate. This excuse has been played up for justifying the mushrooming Mandamus Writs, but ultimately, no reason could ever justify reducing the power of issue of a prerogative Writ of Mandamus into a profane deliverance of a prosaic kind, denuded of its constitutional coloration for populist humouring. If any system by and large nurtures mediocrity for short term results, the institution will be the loser in the long run, as too much and too often mediocrity would only end up stymieing the robust growth of the institution.
13.This is not to say that no Writ of Mandamus could be issued at all by the constitutional Court in view of its abusement. There are cases where the Courts find that authorities need to apply their minds before they come up for consideration for a judicial review. But those cases are becoming few and far between among the pile up of trite Mandamus cases. The unwholesome occupation of the Courts in dealing with such cases frittering away its valuable time has been progressively eating into the vitals of the constitutional governance, weakening its core concern towards adjudication of competing serious challenges and unravelling of important legal tangles.
14.An atrophied state of “Mandamus Management” requires a concerted surgical response.
15.With the above observation, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Index : Yes/No 19.01.2021
Internet : Yes/No
mm/SRM
To
1.The District Registrar,
Office of the District Registrar,
Trichy.
2.The Sub Registrar,
K.Sathanur Sub Registrar Office,
Trichy District.
V.PARTHIBAN, J.
mm/SRM
W.P.(MD)No.617 of 2021
19.01.2021
Vs.
1.The District Registrar,
Office of the District Registrar,
Trichy.
2.The Sub Registrar,
K.Sathanur Sub Registrar Office,
Trichy District.
3.Jailani Beevi .. Respondents
PRAYER:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to cancel the documents pertaining to document No.2224/2010 and 2225/2010 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein on the basis of the petitioner representation dated 11.12.2020 within the time stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Jameel Arasu
For R1 & R2 : Mr.K.Sathiya Singh
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
According to the petitioner, he purchased two plots having a total extent of 4800 sq.fts., for a valuable consideration. The sale has also been registered. There appears to be a dispute as to the title of the property and there is a rival claim by the neighbour of the petitioner. In the said circumstances, the petitioner appears to have filed a suit in O.S.No.642/2012 before the 2nd Additional District Munsif Court, Trichy seeking permanent injunction against the third party. According to the petitioner, due to certain financial requirements, he had decided to sell the property to a third party.
2.While the matter stood thus, the 3rd respondent, who was also making a claim to the title, had given an undertaking in writing on 30.11.2018 that she has no right whatsoever in those two plots, which is the subject matter of dispute. In the meanwhile, the suit filed by the petitioner has been decreed as ex parte in his favour.
3.Subsequently, the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent for making proper entry in the revenue records about the ex parte decree passed by the civil Court and to cancel the registration of documents on behalf of the 3rd party. According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent has not acted upon and therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.
4.In the said circumstances, the petitioner has submitted a detailed representation to the respondents on 11.12.2020 seeking to cancel the documents and in pursuance of the petitioner’s representation, dated 11.12.2020, the 1st respondent issued a notice dated 08.12.2020, directing the petitioner to attend enquiry on 04.01.2021. The petitioner appeared before the 1st respondent for enquiry and submitted all the documents. The present grievance of the petitioner is not in regard to the submission of documents, but the inaction on the part of the authorities from 04.01.2021 and therefore, he is before this Court.
5.This Court is not happy about the filing of the present writ petition for the reason that the enquiry was held only recently on 04.01.2021 and immediately thereafter, the petitioner appears to have filed the present writ petition seeking a direction from this Court. When the competent authority is looking into the matter and conducting the enquiry, he ought to be given reasonable time to complete the enquiry and before taking a decision in the matter, needlessly, the petitioner is before this Court without giving a reasonable time for the authority to pass orders.
6.This Court is unable to appreciate the conduct of the litigants by invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, without waiting for a reasonable time to lapse. This Court unfortunately has been witnessing in the recent past that plethora of ‘Mandamus’ Writ Petitions being filed at the drop of a hat for all kinds of relief as a matter of course taking away the precious time of this Court from focusing on a quality litigation in true exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction. The Writ Courts have been deluged with ‘Mandamus’ petitions converting the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court into a ‘Direction Factory’ or ‘Machine’ producing clichéd, stereotype order/hackneyed directions which hardly require any application of mind.
7.It has lately become a routine exercise of the Writ Court to pander to the ‘Mandamus Mania’ to keep the bar in good humour. Ultimately, at the end of the day, a Writ Court hardly finds sufficient time to engage itself in settlement of serious lis of the parties due to its predominant occupation on a trivia most of the time. In fact, the experience of the Writ Court is that directions to various authorities to take decisions in regard to the grievances projected by the litigants, have invariably get rebirth and the lis is back on the lap of this Court for adjudication once again.
8.This pernicious and pandering trend must stop somewhere and sometime to save the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court from sliding into the abyss of “Direction Court” not worthy of its status and relevance. In fact, this trend, apart from belittling the constitutional jurisdiction of this Writ Court, lately has to an extraordinary measure been encouraging the present younger generation of lawyers to resort to Mandamus litigations through a contrived route as a fast track to achieve instant result for their brief at the cost of valuable Court’s time, and thereby depriving the litigants of actual relief/s deserved by them, at the first instance.
9.Further, in the process of summary disposal of the Writ Petition, by skimming the surface of the litigations the Courts have many a time forced to relegate its intellect and scholarship to the back-burner on expediencies. The constitutional courts have been woefully reduced to a below par performer allowing mediocrity to creep into the system of Writ governance. The prerogative writ jurisdiction of the constitutional court, has over a period of time degenerated into mundane and insipid exercise of power. The proliferation of Mandamus litigations on a phenomenal scale is a crass reminder to the institution that it is high time the constitutional Courts did corrective judicial introspection and discourage any attempt by obsessive “Direction Seekers” from plummeting the exalted jurisdiction of the Courts into a barren, pedestrian and stupefied judicial edifice.
10.Moreover, the ominous “Mandamus Culture” in full swing off late sometimes produces the desired result instantly but in the long run the institutional standards of constitutional Courts is being compromised to a large measure. It is common knowledge in the state that the authorities at various positions taking cue from the trend are by and large not inclined to discharge their official responsibility or function, unless a direction is issued by the Courts on almost all matters, which should have been decided and disposed of routinely by them in a time bound manner. The trend has reached an alarming level today that a representation is submitted to the authority for his action and simultaneously a Writ of Mandamus is filed seeking direction to dispose of the representation.
11.What an apology state of affairs of functioning of the constitutional courts, that every representation of variegated kind from a citizen to the authorities is generally not acted upon, unless a direction from the Courts to make them act. The ill effect of the ‘scourge’ has uniformly made the administrative authorities at various levels complacent to the point of being apathetic when citizens approach them for redressal of their grievances, as no decision taken on their representations, promptly and on their own accord and wait for a mandate in the form of a direction from the Courts. In the unfortunate bargain, the Courts have been reduced as appendages to the administrative hierarchy of the Government, as every official of the Government today expects a direction from the Court as part of the administrative functions. It is disquieting that the important jurisdiction of the Writ Court has been allowed to be hijacked by ‘Direction Seekers’ thriving on the crest of fast track disposals behind the cloak of expediencies, blaming inordinate delay in having the matters adjudicated on merits by the Courts.
12.The excuse of ‘delayed justice’ is no doubt real, but the affliction of backlog is being constantly addressed and monitored at various levels and several remedial measures have been put in place towards reduction of the pendency rate. This excuse has been played up for justifying the mushrooming Mandamus Writs, but ultimately, no reason could ever justify reducing the power of issue of a prerogative Writ of Mandamus into a profane deliverance of a prosaic kind, denuded of its constitutional coloration for populist humouring. If any system by and large nurtures mediocrity for short term results, the institution will be the loser in the long run, as too much and too often mediocrity would only end up stymieing the robust growth of the institution.
13.This is not to say that no Writ of Mandamus could be issued at all by the constitutional Court in view of its abusement. There are cases where the Courts find that authorities need to apply their minds before they come up for consideration for a judicial review. But those cases are becoming few and far between among the pile up of trite Mandamus cases. The unwholesome occupation of the Courts in dealing with such cases frittering away its valuable time has been progressively eating into the vitals of the constitutional governance, weakening its core concern towards adjudication of competing serious challenges and unravelling of important legal tangles.
14.An atrophied state of “Mandamus Management” requires a concerted surgical response.
15.With the above observation, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Index : Yes/No 19.01.2021
Internet : Yes/No
mm/SRM
To
1.The District Registrar,
Office of the District Registrar,
Trichy.
2.The Sub Registrar,
K.Sathanur Sub Registrar Office,
Trichy District.
V.PARTHIBAN, J.
mm/SRM
W.P.(MD)No.617 of 2021
19.01.2021
