The Madras High Court has held that the Registry of the High Court cannot sit in judgment on the maintainability of a case at the stage of numbering petitions..Pertinent observations in this regard were made in a judgment rendered recently by a Division Bench of Justices KK Sashidharan and Justice P Velmurugan..The petition in question prayed for compensation from the Southern Railway authorities on account of the murder of Infosys employee S Swathi at Nungambakkam Railway Station last year. The petition filed by Swathi’s parents claimed a compensation amount of Rs 3 crore from the railway authorities..The Registry, however, rejected the petition on the ground that alternative remedies by way of approaching the Railway Claims Tribunal or the Civil Court were available to the petitioners. On appeal, the objection raised by the Registry was upheld by a single judge. The same was thereafter challenged before the Division Bench..The Court made special note of the fact that the Registry exceeded its powers in rejecting the petition..“The Registry by returning the writ petition on the ground of maintainability virtually acted as the Court and exercised judicial function. The Registry has no authority to reject the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. It is for the Court to decide whether the writ petition should be entertained in a matter, in spite of alternative remedy. .It is always open to the Court to entertain the writ petition notwithstanding the alternative remedy available to the party. We therefore hold that it is not within the province of the Registry to return the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy.”.In deciding whether the petition could be entertained by it, the Court noted that it was well within its powers to take up the case, given its wide jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to entertain cases concerning public law liability..Moreover, as pointed out by the petitioner-appellants, the compensation sought for was beyond the pecuniary limit prescribed as far as the jurisdiction of the Railway Claims Tribunal is concerned..On these grounds, the single judge order upholding the Registry’s objection was set aside. Accordingly, the Registry was directed to number the writ petition and post it before the appropriate single judge..Read copy of Judgment.
The Madras High Court has held that the Registry of the High Court cannot sit in judgment on the maintainability of a case at the stage of numbering petitions..Pertinent observations in this regard were made in a judgment rendered recently by a Division Bench of Justices KK Sashidharan and Justice P Velmurugan..The petition in question prayed for compensation from the Southern Railway authorities on account of the murder of Infosys employee S Swathi at Nungambakkam Railway Station last year. The petition filed by Swathi’s parents claimed a compensation amount of Rs 3 crore from the railway authorities..The Registry, however, rejected the petition on the ground that alternative remedies by way of approaching the Railway Claims Tribunal or the Civil Court were available to the petitioners. On appeal, the objection raised by the Registry was upheld by a single judge. The same was thereafter challenged before the Division Bench..The Court made special note of the fact that the Registry exceeded its powers in rejecting the petition..“The Registry by returning the writ petition on the ground of maintainability virtually acted as the Court and exercised judicial function. The Registry has no authority to reject the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. It is for the Court to decide whether the writ petition should be entertained in a matter, in spite of alternative remedy. .It is always open to the Court to entertain the writ petition notwithstanding the alternative remedy available to the party. We therefore hold that it is not within the province of the Registry to return the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy.”.In deciding whether the petition could be entertained by it, the Court noted that it was well within its powers to take up the case, given its wide jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to entertain cases concerning public law liability..Moreover, as pointed out by the petitioner-appellants, the compensation sought for was beyond the pecuniary limit prescribed as far as the jurisdiction of the Railway Claims Tribunal is concerned..On these grounds, the single judge order upholding the Registry’s objection was set aside. Accordingly, the Registry was directed to number the writ petition and post it before the appropriate single judge..Read copy of Judgment.
