The Madras High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a practising advocate seeking directions to the High Court Registry to list several pending cases that, according to him, had not been listed for a considerable period. The court held that a writ petition cannot be used to bypass the High Court's established case-listing mechanism or seek priority over other pending matters.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, a practising advocate, approached the Madras High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking directions to the Registry at the Principal Seat and the Madurai Bench to list 21 pending matters handled by him. According to him, several Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, Civil Revision Petitions, Criminal Original Petitions and Writ Petitions filed on behalf of his clients had not been listed despite repeated representations to the Registry, leaving him answerable to his clients and causing professional anxiety.
Court's Observations
The Division Bench observed that while it understood the concerns of an advocate waiting for matters to be listed, the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 could not be invoked to interfere with the court's administrative process of listing cases.
The bench observed,
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
"The remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be utilized as an administrative tool to bypass the High Court's established listing procedures."
The court further explained that regulating the listing of cases is an essential part of judicial administration. It observed that neither a litigant nor a lawyer has a vested or fundamental right to demand that a case be listed ahead of matters instituted earlier, except through the court's established exceptional procedures.
Highlighting the workload of the Registry, the Bench noted that thousands of fresh matters are processed every week along with existing pending cases. Maintaining a fair and orderly system requires cases to be listed according to the applicable roster, category, and chronology.
The judges also cautioned that entertaining such writ petitions would burden the judicial system itself.
"If every advocate whose case is delayed is permitted to file a writ petition against the Registry, the court would be flooded with internal litigation, effectively paralyzing the administration of justice," the Bench observed.
It reiterated that a writ of mandamus is a discretionary remedy meant to enforce a clear statutory or legal right or remedy a breach of legal duty. The Bench held that no such breach was established in the present case.
Alternative Remedies Suggested
While declining the relief, the Bench pointed out that the petitioner was not without remedies. It said that if a matter required urgent listing or had remained pending due to procedural reasons, counsel could file a formal praecipe (mention memo) before the Bench holding the relevant roster, which would decide whether expedited listing was warranted.
The court also observed that the petitioner was free to submit a detailed representation to the Registrar (Judicial), who has the administrative authority to address listing-related discrepancies, if any.
Decision
Holding that the relief sought could not be granted within the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution, the Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition.
The court also made no order as to costs.
Case Details
Case Title: L.K. Charles Alexander v. Registrar General & Another
Case Number: W.P. No. 24309 of 2026
Judge: Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan
Decision Date: 03 July 2026
 Department-300x169.webp)
