JACOB SAMUEL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above Writ Appeal is preferred against an order passed by a Single Judge in an un-numbered Writ Petition. In the Writ Petition filed by the appellant, the Registry of this court had noted defects, interalia seeking clarification as to whether this court can exercise writ jurisdiction on the honourable apex court and on the collegium of the honourable Supreme Court of India, and also raising doubt with respect to locus standi of the petitioner in filing the writ petition, which was observed to be one having the nature of public interest. Queries made by the Registry were answered by learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, observing that the powers vested on this court under Article 226 of the Constitution is wider enough to entertain the writ petition. Then the Registry had posted the Writ Petition as un-numbered before the Single Judge, presumably based on the answers of the learned counsel to the queries made. But the learned Single Judge passed the impugned order by rejecting the reliefs sought for in the writ petition, for the reason that the writ petition is not numbered.

(2.) Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, the Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the 1st respondent and the Government Pleader appearing for the 6th respondent.

(3.) We are of the considered opinion that the learned Judge ought to have considered the question of maintainability of the writ petition and ought to have taken an appropriate decision on that question. What was referred for decision of the Single Judge is the issue of entertaining the writ petition by the Registry. By rejecting the relief sought for, solely on the ground that the writ petition was not numbered, will definitely put the petitioner to a situation wherein he will be deprived of seeking remedy before any higher forum. Hence, the impugned order cannot be sustained.