Registry practice — Numbering of petitions — “Subject to maintainability” endorsement — Mandatory procedure (Paras 5–6, 9–13) Issue: Procedure to be followed where Registry entertains doubt regarding maintainability of case. Facts: Despite resolutions of Grievance Redressal Committee, Supreme Court directions in P. Surendran v. State and subsequent Circular dated 28.08.2025, Registry continued practice of not numbering petitions and listing them at SR stage. Held: If papers are otherwise in order but Registry doubts maintainability, petition must still be numbered with endorsement “numbered subject to maintainability” and thereafter placed before concerned Roster Judge for judicial determination. (Paras 5–6, 9–13)

advocatemmmohan

High Court Registry — Maintainability of case — Judicial function — Registry cannot refuse numbering of petition (Paras 3, 11)

Issue: Whether High Court Registry can refuse to number a petition on ground of maintainability.
Facts: Writ petition at SR stage was listed before Court under caption “for maintainability” following objections raised by Registry regarding maintainability of reliefs sought against Income Tax authorities and third respondent. Court examined continued practice of Registry refusing numbering of petitions despite earlier Supreme Court directions.
Held: Determination of maintainability is a judicial function falling exclusively within domain of Court; Registry cannot refuse numbering of petitions on maintainability grounds and can only scrutinize procedural compliance. (Paras 3, 11)

---

Registry practice — Numbering of petitions — “Subject to maintainability” endorsement — Mandatory procedure (Paras 5–6, 9–13)

Issue: Procedure to be followed where Registry entertains doubt regarding maintainability of case.
Facts: Despite resolutions of Grievance Redressal Committee, Supreme Court directions in P. Surendran v. State and subsequent Circular dated 28.08.2025, Registry continued practice of not numbering petitions and listing them at SR stage.
Held: If papers are otherwise in order but Registry doubts maintainability, petition must still be numbered with endorsement “numbered subject to maintainability” and thereafter placed before concerned Roster Judge for judicial determination. (Paras 5–6, 9–13)

---

Administrative instructions — Compliance by Registry — Binding nature of Supreme Court directions (Paras 7–12)

Issue: Whether Registry can continue contrary practice despite Supreme Court orders and administrative circulars.
Facts: Supreme Court in S. Balakrishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu and Grievance Redressal Committee resolutions directed that all petitions should be numbered first and maintainability decided only by Roster Judge; nevertheless Registry persisted with earlier practice.
Held: Directions issued by Supreme Court, Grievance Redressal Committee and Registrar General are binding on Registry and must be scrupulously followed; Registrar General directed to circulate order to all Registry sections for strict compliance. (Paras 7–12)

---

RATIO

Power to decide maintainability of a case is a judicial function which cannot be delegated to the High Court Registry. Therefore, where petition papers are otherwise in order, the Registry is bound to number the case and, if any doubt regarding maintainability exists, place it before the competent Roster Judge with an endorsement “subject to maintainability”, instead of refusing registration itself.