Writ petition is maintainable against administrative actions

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
seaeeanassasssam=sos
Unnumbered Writ Petitions (C) of 2021
(F.Nos.9031715 and 9031706 of 2021)
Dated this the 31t day of August, 2021
ORDER

9. Coming to the issue relating to the sustainability
of the doubt raised by the Registry, as noted, the stand taken
by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the subject
matter of the writ petition being one relating to the
administrative function of the Chief Justice of this Court and the
Chief Justice of India, a writ petition can certainly be instituted
seeking reliefs against the Chief Justice of this court as also the
Chief Justice of India. It is seen that though the question
whether a writ petition would lie against the Chief Justice of a
High Court has come up before the Apex court in Pradyat
Kumar Bose v. Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court, AIR
1956 SC 285, no opinion was given on the question by the Apex
Court. However, the following observation was made by the
Apex Court in the said case.
We consider it however desirable to say that our view that
the exercise of the power of dismissal of a civil servant in the
exercise of administrative power may not necessarily preclude
the availablity of remedy under Art.226 of the Constitution in
Signature yalid
JUSTICE PBSURFUMAR
31.08.2021 17
Unnumbered Writ Petitions (C) of 2021
(FNos.9031715 and 9031706 of 2021) 10
an appropriate case.
Later, following the said observation, in Pramatha Nath
Mitter and others v. Hon'ble The Chief Justice of the
High Court at Calcutta in the State of W.B.. AIR 1961
Calcutta 545, the Calcutta High Court took the view that when
an action of the Chief Justice is of an administrative nature,
there may be a remedy available under Article 226 in
appropriate cases. It is in the light of this case that the Registry
sought clarification from the counsel for the petitioner as to
whether the writ petition would lie against the Chief Justice.
Later, a Full Bench of this court, after analysing the aforesaid
two judgments, clarified in K.Prabhakaran Nair v. State of
Kerala, 1969 KLT 444 that there is nothing in the wording of
Article 226 of the Constitution which warrants the imposition of
a limitation that the jurisdiction of the High Court under the said
Article cannot be invoked for the purpose of calling in question
orders passed by the Chief Justice or by the High Court itself on
Signature yalid
JUSTICE B SURF UMAR
31.08 2021 17
Unnumbered Writ Petitions (C) of 2021
(F.Nos.9031715 and 9031706 of 2021) 11
administrative side. In the light of the aforesaid discussion,
there is no legal basis for the doubt raised by the Registry in the
matters.
The Registry is, therefore, directed to number the
writ petitions and list them for admission.
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE