R. MUTHUKRISHNAN Vs. THE REGISTRAR (ADMINISTRATION) HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS HIGH COURT CAMPUS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Appeal is instituted under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, calling in question the correctness of the Order and Judgment rendered by our learned brother T.S.Sivagnanam,J., dismissing the writ petition instituted by the appellant herein, calling in question the correctness of the communication bearing ROC 3080/2014/DS dtd. 21/7/2014 issued by the Registrar (Administration), High Court of Madras, Chennai, informing the writ petitioner that the replacement of tube lights will be undertaken only in the corridor (common areas) and not in the Chambers of the Advocates.

(2.) The facts which are only relevant for our enquiry are that the writ petitioner appears to be a co-allottee of Chamber No.281 of New Additional Law Chambers situated in the High Court premises at Chennai. He seems to have addressed a communication to the Registrar (Administration) of High Court on 27/6/2014, seeking replacement of two tube lights in the said Chamber, which appear to have fused out. The request of the writ petitioner having been declined in the aforesaid manner, the Writ Petitioner preferred the Writ Petition.

(3.) The main theme of the contention canvassed is that the order of allotment dtd. 27/1/2005, stipulated certain conditions to be complied with by the main allotee and co-allotees and since the Registrar (Administration) is collecting monthly rent for the Chambers at the rate of Rs.4.00 per sq.ft and monthly maintenance charges for the Chambers at the rate of Rs.2.00 per sq.ft., apart from collecting payment of actual electricity consumption charges as determined based upon the consumption recorded in the individual meters fixed to the respective chambers, it is for the Registrar (Administration) of this High Court to provide for the replacement of the tube-lights. That contention having not been accepted the learned single Judge, resulting in the dismissal of the Writ Petition, the present Writ Appeal is preferred. Once again the appellant has preferred to appear in person and make his submissions. The Registry has raised an objection about the maintainability of this Appeal.