ORDER
B. Prakash Rao, J.
1. This case has come up before us for consideration of an important question concerning the Subordinate Courts and in regard to the procedure to be adopted in a given situation, especially, as to whether the Presiding Officers of the Courts below should file an affidavit duly sworn to by them in support of the applications seeking extension of the period, which has been prescribed for or ordered by this Court, while disposing of the main cases, for disposal.
2. Heard Sri M.V. Durga Prasad, learned Counsel, Sri M.R.K. Chowdary, learned Senior counsel, Sri D.V. Sitharammurthy, learned counsel, the President of the A.P. High Court Advocates’ Association and the learned Advocate General.
3. Shorn of the details, which are not necessary forthe present purpose, the sequel of events giving rise to the situations commence with the ‘For being’ note put up by the Registry.
In an instance, through a letter dated 3-2-2001 in Dis. No. 362, when the Chairman, Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada, has requested the Registry for extension of time for a period of two months, for disposal of the case in L.R.A. No. 114 of 1992, while extending time for disposal of the appeal by four weeks, by the order dated 23-3-2001, Hon’ble Sri Satyabrata Sinha, the then Hon’ble the Chief Justice, observed thus:
NB:- Office should treat the aforementioned letterdt. 3-2-2001 as a miscellaneous application and number the same.
The Registry is hereby directed to issue a Circular to all the Judicial Officers that they should not henceforth issue letters seeking extension of time on the administrative side.
4. It is a matter of common practice that while disposing of the cases be it on civil side or criminal side or otherwise on original, writ proceedings etc., the directions are given to the Courts below for disposal of those cases in a given period having regard to the urgency and with a view to put an early end to the dispute. However, in situations where such directions could not be complied with and those cases could not possibly be disposed of within that particular period. Prior to the aforesaid observations of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice (as he then was) and at various points of time later, the Presiding Officers of those Courts have been regularly writing letters to the Registry seeking extension of time, so as to comply the directions and dispose of the same within the extended period. Many times they have shown the reasons for such non-disposal within the said time limit. Now, it has been pointed out by the Office of this Court that pursuant to the above directions as mentioned above, the Registry has given effect to the first part alone but did not issue any directions or Circular to the concerned, in the manner which it has to be strictly required to be followed up. Such letters are being treated on the Judicial Side and were directed to be posted under the caption “For Direction” on the first page of the Cause List by treating them as Miscellaneous Petitions. However, the Registry has noted as under:
It is further respectfully submitted that pursuant to the above direction, the Registry has given effect to the first part alone, but inadvertently omitted to give effect to the second part and thereby issued a Circular to various Sections of the Registry, directing all the filing Sections to forward the letters received from the Judicial Officers seeking extension of time to comply with the directions of the Hon’ble Courts to the Scrutiny Officers Section, further directing that the Scrutiny Officers Section shall treat them as Miscellaneous Petitions, process the same and after numbering, send them to the concerned Filing Sections to enable the Filing Sections to post the Miscellaneous Petitions before the Hon’ble Courts under the caption ‘For Direction’ in the first page of the Cause List. It is still further respectfully submitted that the direction given by the then Hon’ble Chief Justice in relation to that letter was to treat it alone as a Miscellaneous Petition and number the same. Whereas the Registry was directed to issue a Circular to all the Judicial Officers that they should not thenceforth issue letters seeking extension of time on administrative side, but somehow the relevant Circular was not issued to implement the said direction.
5. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid reasons as pointed out by the Registry, the matter has ultimately come up before us for consideration as to the propriety or any necessity of a Presiding Officer to file an affidavit in support of such applications, which are being sent for seeking such extension of time. At this juncture, it is relevant to extract the Standing Order 217-26, which reads as follows:
Where particular time is fixed by the High Court for the disposal of any particular matter by the Lower Court, and if letters are received in the Registry from Judicial Officers, seeking extension of time, such letters, along with the concerned bundle, shall be circulated to the Hon’ble Judge, who fixed the time schedule (and if the Hon’ble Judge is not available, to the Hon’ble Judge for whom provision is made for that particular category of Case), by way of an Office Note to be signed by the Deputy Registrar concerned. Other things follow, as per the directions of the Hon’ble Judge.
6. This procedure was being followed all along for last several years unscathed. Accordingly, the Presiding Officers concerned were addressing letters to this Court and the same were being posted before the Court for “Extension of Time”, of course, without giving any separate number to the letter as such either as miscellaneous or otherwise. However, later having regard to the aforesaid observations of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice (as he then was), these letters were being treated on the Judicial Side and are given numbering as Miscellaneous Petitions, and are being posted accordingly. However, it has been pointed out that henceforth, such letters seeking extension of time sh’ould not be on the Administrative Side but only on the Judicial Side and therefore, the Registry has issued a Circular in R.O.C. No.14/R.Judl./ 2006 dated 11-10-2006, which reads as follows:
All the Presiding Officers under the control of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh are aware of the procedure hitherto being following i.e., whenever directions are given by the High Court directing the Courts below to dispose of any Proceedings pending before them within a time schedule, and in case of any difficulty in disposing of the case as per the directions, the concerned Presiding Officers of the Courts below addressing letters on the Administrative side seeking extension of time for disposing of the Proceedings before them.
They are further informed that such letters are being placed before the concerned Hon’ble Judge/Judges, after treating such letters as Miscellaneous Applications on the Judicial side, and orders passed thereon are communicated to the concerned Courts.
They are further informed that inasmuch as the letters sent by them are being treated as Miscellaneous Petitions on the Judicial Side, I am directed to request all the Presiding Officers under the control of the High Court not to address letters on the Administrative side and instead, they are henceforth required to send appropriate application on the Judicial Side for posting them before the concerned Hon’ble Judge/ Judges, for processing them on the Judicial Side.
The above instructions will come into force with immediate effect.
7. From the above, necessarily, the pointer is to the effect that such letters should be sent in the format of an appropriate application on the Judicial Side, which apparently is taken as an application normally filed in the due compliance of the Appellate Rules of Practice and supported by an affidavit. Therefore, in each case, the Presiding Officers are filing the affidavits sworn to by them giving the reasons and the same are taken as applications. Neither in the aforesaid Standing Order nor the Appellate Side Rules, contemplate any such requirement. The Presiding Officers, by filing their own affidavits, are virtually being made to become a party to each such proceeding, wherever such extensions are being sought. This practice of filing of affidavits is also causing flutter amongst the Judicial Officers, apart from the inconveniences, since most of the situations where the cases would not be disposed of within such period, cannot be attributed to them. Ultimately, it is only due to some or other reason; the cases are being adjourned in the exigency at the instance of either of the parties to the proceedings rather than at the sole instance of the Presiding Officers. Therefore, in such situations, filing of any affidavit duly sworn to or giving any reasons in support in such a format virtually would amount to personal entry into the case, which directly concerns to the parties than to the said officers. Even otherwise, it has never been the practice to file any affidavits by the Presiding Officers. In fact Presiding Officers should never create an involving situation.
8. At this juncture, it is relevant to note certain observations made by one of us (Justice L. Narasimha Reddy) in a similar situation while considering similar application seeking for extension in a situation where it has been observed as under:
It is not uncommon that extension of time stipulated by this Court for disposal of the matters by subordinate Courts is sought. Till recently, the concerned Officers used to address letters to the Registry, which, in turn, used to prepare a formal C.M.P. and list the matter before the concerned Court. Filing of affidavits by the concerned Presiding Officers is said to be in compliance with the requirement of a Circular issued by this Court on 11-10-2006. On a perusal of the Circular, it becomes evident that it was issued to give effect to the direction issued on 23-3-2001 by the then Hon’ble the Chief Justice, which reads as under:
The Registry is hereby directed to issue a circular to all the Judicial Officers that they should not henceforth issue letters seeking extension of time on the administrative side.
This Court is of the view that implementation of the direction referred to above need not entail in insisting the Judicial Officers to file their personal affidavits. Whatever be the object, the insistence on the Judicial Officer, who is entrusted with the adjudication of the matter, to swear to an affidavit, get it attested, would certainly tell upon the sacred function. A trivial matter such as seeking extension of time for disposal, which, for the most part of it, is the function of a party, must not entail in a situation, which would expose the Judicial Officer to non-adjudicatory functions, such as swearing it to affidavits and getting them attested by Advocates. Further, any minor or inaccurancy in the facts stated in the affidavit is prone to expose the Officers to unwarranted delicate situations.
The Registrar (Judicial) has placed before this Court the relevant record that led to issuance of the Circular dated 11-10-2006. Even from this, it is not clear that there was any specific direction that required the Judicial Officers to file affidavits, while seeking extension of time.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Registrar (Judicial) is directed to place the matter before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice and seek specific instructions as to whether it is inevitable and mandatory to require the Judicial Officers to file their affidavits while seeking extension of time for disposal and depending on the nature of directions that may be issued by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice, and take necessary consequential steps.
9. We have given once again a due consideration to the aforesaid observations and we reiterate the same once again in these proceedings.
10. There is no serious dispute and it is well established that under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, that this Court has ample powers to extend the time even in the said situation. However, having regard to the scuttle distinction between the powers on Judicial and Administrative Sides, which includes many ministerial acts, the latter cannot prevail over the former. In regard to the administration and control, the powers of the High Court are specifically provided for under Articles 227, 229 and 235 of the Constitution of India, which only take any exercise more on Administrative Side rather than making inroads into the Judicial arena. Any such attempt to insist an affidavit or, direct roping in a Presiding Officer of any Court would be an encroachment over the exclusive prerogative and independence of the Judicial wing.
11. As already pointed out that as per the Standing Order, which has been in force in 217-26, it would suffice on the part of the Presiding Officers to address in the same format and in the same procedure, which has been in practice all along and the same have to be posted on the Judicial Side and accordingly, dispose of the same by treating as an application. Therefore, it is not necessary for the Registry to insist upon filing any affidavit by the Presiding Officers. Whenever such requests are sent and acted upon the appropriate application as mentioned to in the aforesaid Circular dated 11-10-2006 need not accompany any affidavit by the Presiding Officers.
12. Subject to the above, the application is accordingly disposed of. The time for disposal is extended by a further period of four (4) weeks. We place on record, the valuable assistance given by Sri M.R.K. Chowdary, learned Senior Counsel, Sri M.V. Durga Prasad, learned Counsel, Sri D.V. Sitharammurthy, learned Counsel and the learned Advocate General.
