JUDGMENT : M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J. 1. The petitioner who is presently working as Registrar (Recruitment) and previously worked as Registrar (Judicial) of High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue writ of certiorari declaring the observations made in Orders dated 05-08-2021 and 16-08-2021 by the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court in COMS Nos. 1 & 2 of 2020 and CS No. 3 of 2019 and consequential actions/orders if any, as illegal, arbitrary, irrational and as being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently expunge and set aside the observations made in the orders 05-08-2021 and 16-08-2021 and any consequential actions/orders, if any. 2. The petitioner was the controlling officer of entire judicial section in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the section processed COMS Nos. 1 and 2 of 2020 and CS No. 3 of 2019 in its regular course. The petitioner worked allegedly with utmost diligence and commitment in accordance with the established practices, high court rules, standing orders, roster directions issued by the honourable judges from time to time and always strived to uphold The Majesty of the honourable court in discharging his duties and functions in accordance with law. 3. The petitioner contended that, COMS Nos. 1 and 2 of 2020 and CS No. 3 of 2019 were listed before the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court on 22-07-2021 and the Hon'ble Single Judge was pleased to pass an Order concerning the matter, the relevant portion of the same is extracted hereunder : "The intending bidders may inspect the first defendant Vessel at Kakinada Harbour between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. on all working days from 05.08.2021 onwards to 13-08-2021. The intending bidders shall leave a request in writing to the Harbour Master, Kakinada Seaports Limited, Kakinada, one day in advance suggesting the date on which they intend to carry out the inspection and the authorities of Kakinada Port Trust shall give access to such intending bidders upon satisfying of their identity and also as to the purpose of inspection of this Vessel. Expenses relating to this inspection incurred by Kakinada Seaport Limited, if any, shall be borne by the intending bidders. Expenses relating to this inspection incurred by Kakinada Seaport Limited, if any, shall be borne by the intending bidders. Publish in TIMES OF INDIA and FINANCIAL EXPRESS having All India circulation by 05-08-2021 and copies of the same shall be filed into the Registry by 05-08-2021. Bids shall be submitted by 20-08-2021 and opening the bids is on 02-09-2021. The successful bidder shall pay the balance bid amount on or before 16-09-2021. Publication shall also carry out the proforma of the bid document. All the parties to the Suits are permitted to publicize the proposed sale of the first defendant Vessel and third defendant Kakinada Seaports Limited, Kakinada shall post on its Website. The Kakinada Port Trust also is permitted to post this bid document on its official website. The third defendant Kakinada Seaports Limited, Kakinada is directed to deposit Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty lakhs) to the credit of the Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati tentatively to meet the publication expenses, and in case, these expenses exceed the above sum, the company shall pay such further sum required within the time directed by the Registry. All the expenses incurred by Kakinada Seaport Limited, Kakinada the third defendant, shall be defrayed from sale proceeds, realized upon sale of the first defendant Vessel first and balance alone shall be available for distribution for those entitled to. List on 05.08.2021.” 4. It is submitted that the Order dated 22-07-2021 was brought to the petitioner’s notice on 24-07-2021 at about 1:30 P.M. Upon perusing the record and the Order of the Hon'ble Single Judge, the petitioner issued necessary instructions on the same day and the file was marked to Sri SVSR Murthy, Joint Registrar for preparing the Notice and Annexures as directed in Order dated 22-07-2021. 5. The said file along with the draft Notice and Annexures were placed before the petitioner on 02-08-2021. The petitioner also got prepared letters to address to News Papers for Paper Publication to comply with the Orders of the Hon'ble Court. Upon instructions of the petitioner, Personal Secretary of the petitioner contacted Times of India newspaper agency to enquire about the cost of publication and he was informed that it would cost approximately Rs.30 Lakhs for publication of the Notice and Annexures only in one newspaper out of the 2 newspapers, as ordered i.e. Times of India. 6. Upon instructions of the petitioner, Personal Secretary of the petitioner contacted Times of India newspaper agency to enquire about the cost of publication and he was informed that it would cost approximately Rs.30 Lakhs for publication of the Notice and Annexures only in one newspaper out of the 2 newspapers, as ordered i.e. Times of India. 6. It is submitted that, as the amount directed to be deposited by Kakinada Seaports Limited, Kakinada was Rs. 20,00,000/-. for publication in two newspapers i.e. Times of India and Financial Express but the estimate of Times of India newspaper alone was approximately Rs.30 Lakhs, the petitioner had personally met the learned Single Judge in his chamber during lunch time between 1:30 pm and 2:15 pm on 03-08-2021. The petitioner personally submitted to the learned Single Judge about the approximate cost that the newspaper is quoting and sought learned Judge’s guidance to comply with the Orders of the Hon'ble Court in the circumstances of the case. 7. It is submitted that, when I met the Hon'ble Single Judge on 03-08-2021 during lunch time, the petitioner also carried the draft Notice and annexures which were already prepared and ready for publication in COMS Nos. 1 and 2 of 2020 and CS No. 3 of 2019 and also a similar notice which was earlier published in CS No. 2 of 2019 dated 15-03-2021. On perusing and considering the same, His Lordship gave necessary instructions to the petitioner as to how the Notice and Annexures for publication should be modified in order to scale down the content with a view to reduce the costs of publication. In the presence of the learned single Judge, the petitioner noted down necessary corrections on the draft Notice as suggested. 8. It is submitted that, the learned Single Judge also instructed the petitioner to prepare a Note for extension of time for publication, by explaining the reasons and also to inform the concerned Counsel appearing in the matter. On 03-08-2021 itself the Counsel was informed about the developments and a Note was prepared with a prayer seeking 15 days' time for publication. The Notice was also modified as per the instructions of the learned Single Judge and the final draft was prepared. 9. The Note along with the Notice in CS No. 2 of 2019, Modified Notice prepared in COMS Nos. The Notice was also modified as per the instructions of the learned Single Judge and the final draft was prepared. 9. The Note along with the Notice in CS No. 2 of 2019, Modified Notice prepared in COMS Nos. 1 and 2 of 2020 and CS No. 3 of 2019 and notice along with Annexures I & II prepared in COMS Nos. 1 and 2 of 2020 and CS No. 3 of 2019 was filed before the Hon'ble Court on 04-08-2021 praying for 15 days time for publication of Notice. 10. When the matter was listed on 05-08-2021, the petitioner was informed by the Court staff that the learned Single Judge has directed the petitioner to be present in person before the Court. Upon the petitioner’s appearance, the learned Single Judge questioned the action of the petitioner in filing a Note praying for 15 days' time. With an element of shock and surprise, the petitioner humbly submitted/reminded learned Judge about oral direction given to him (between 1:30 pm to 2:15pm on 03-08-2021), and notwithstanding the same, the petitioner tendered his unconditional apology for any action on part of the petitioner which the learned Judge deemed inappropriate and even sought permission to withdraw the Note. However, the learned Single Judge proceeded and passed an Order by making adverse observations against the petitioner, without giving an opportunity to explain the facts by putting them on record. The relevant portion of the Order dated 05-08 2021 is extracted hereunder : "As seen from the situation in this matter and the note of the Registrar (Judicial), publication is not taken out as directed by the order dated 22-07-2021 Because of this inaction of the Registry, the situation faced by the parties as well as the Court is to extend the timelines changing the above order and to the detriment of everyone. The Registry, instead of assisting the Court, has in the manner created hurdles in going on with this matter. For this reason, the Registrar (Judicial) is called to the Court and asked to explain the nature of the note put by him. Curiously, this note is in the nature of direction to the Bench as to what should be done and what type of publication should be taken out. For this reason, the Registrar (Judicial) is called to the Court and asked to explain the nature of the note put by him. Curiously, this note is in the nature of direction to the Bench as to what should be done and what type of publication should be taken out. The Registrar (Judicial) has taken upon himself by placing a copy of the notice in C.S. No. 2 of 2019 bearing date 15.03.2021 as if for the guidance of the Court and as if a comparison is drawn between the order dated 22.07.2^ in this matter and the notice dated 15-03-2021 in C.S. No. 2 of 2019. This attempt of the Registrar (Judicial) is totally uncalled for. Neither the Court has solicited his advice in the matter nor any of the parties apparently has sought his intervention of this nature. Apparently, this note is in the nature of an attempt to get over the inaction in failing to abide the directions of this Court dated 22.07.2021. Learned Registrar General is directed to place this matter before the Hon'ble The Chief Justice to bring to his Lordship's notice, for necessary information. The way the note is presented by the Registrar (Judicial) is clearly depicting a picture of indiscipline and on the verge of the contempt. Upon hearing Sri S.V.S.S. Siva Ram, Sri Challa Gunaranjan and Sri Nitesh, learned counsel for the parties, in order to avoid this type of inconvenience, which the parties are made to suffer, let learned counsel for the parties enquire about the possible expenses for taking out the publication in appropriate newspapers including in Times of India and Financial Express as ordered on 22.07.2021 and suggest the newspapers, where a publication of this nature can be carried out. On account of predicament faced now, the timelines fixed by the earlier order from 05.08.2021 to 16.09.2021 should necessarily be changed. List on 11.08.2021. 11. Further, the matter was listed on 11-08-2021 and the same was adjourned to 16-08-2021. On 16-08-2021, the learned Single Judge passed an order fixing modified timelines and made certain observations. The relevant portion of the Order is extracted herein : "... Registry shall invariably carryout this order. Any deviation shall not only be viewed seriously but shall be subjected to required action as per law. On 16-08-2021, the learned Single Judge passed an order fixing modified timelines and made certain observations. The relevant portion of the Order is extracted herein : "... Registry shall invariably carryout this order. Any deviation shall not only be viewed seriously but shall be subjected to required action as per law. It is not known the steps taken by the learned Registrar General pursuant to the order dated 05.8.2021 to bring to the notice of the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the note put up by the Registrar (Judicial) referred to in the above order. Learned Registrar General to take necessary action thereon if not initiated so far. Except the Registrar (Judicial), it is obvious none is responsible in placing such note as is evident from the note of the Registrar (Judicial) dated 04.8.2021. List these matters on 26.8.2021. A copy of today's order be circulated to the learned Registrar General." 12. The petitioner specifically contended that, Publication of Notice was done on 25-08-2021 in compliance of the order dated 16-08-2021 passed by the learned Single Judge. Publication was carried out in Financial Express and Economic Times newspapers as per the order dated 16-08-2021 as against Times of India and Financial Express as directed by the learned Single Judge vide its Order dated 22-07-2021. The matter was listed on 26-08-2021 and the relevant portion of the Order of the learned Single Judge is as follows : 'A report is placed by the learned Registrar General in this matter as perused. This report is returned with the order thereon to the learned Registrar General with necessary directions, to maintain confidentiality.". 13. It is contended that, on earlier occasion the learned Single Judge had also passed an Order dated 18-11-2020 in W.P.No.20600 of 2020 making certain observations against the petitioners functioning as Registrar (Judicial). The petitioner was compelled to file W.A. No. 419 of 2020 against the Order and the Hon'ble Division Bench headed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice was pleased to allow the Writ Appeal by expunging the observations made therein and accordingly set aside those observations. 14. The learned Single Judge had also passed an Order dated 23-07-2021 in S.A Nos. The petitioner was compelled to file W.A. No. 419 of 2020 against the Order and the Hon'ble Division Bench headed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice was pleased to allow the Writ Appeal by expunging the observations made therein and accordingly set aside those observations. 14. The learned Single Judge had also passed an Order dated 23-07-2021 in S.A Nos. 420 and 501 of 2011 stating as follows : 'Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, learned Senior Counsel, represents that when an enquiry was made on his behalf in respect of the records of the lower Court, it was informed by the Registry that upon admission of the matter alone, the records would be called for. This act on the part of the Registry is unpardonable and contemptuous. When the specific order of this Court dated 06.07.2021, directed the Registry to call for the records from the Court below, it is not the business of the concerned in the Registry to inform the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant likewise. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to appear before this Court on 28.07.2021, after making due enquiry as to who is responsible for this act of serious dereliction, for this Court to initiate if necessary, action for contempt.' 15. The petitioner appeared and submitted a Report for consideration of the learned Single Judge and upon perusing the same the learned Single Judge by order dated 28-07-2021 directed the Report to be returned to the Registrar (Judicial) treating the matter confidential. 16. The specific grounds urged in the petition to expunge the remarks or set-aside the order are that : A. The Note submitted by the petitioner is in accordance with the oral directions issued by the learned Single Judge, in his Chamber on 03-08-2021 and a perusal of the Note is self-explanatory and there is nothing in the said Note that is indicative of 'giving advise' nor suggestive or 'intervention' in the matter. The petitioner as a subordinate Judicial Officer who is working under the administrative instructions and guidance given by the learned Judges cannot even remotely assume that the petitioner can venture to either give advice or intervene in a matter which is pending adjudication before the learned Judges of this Hon'ble Court. The petitioner as a subordinate Judicial Officer who is working under the administrative instructions and guidance given by the learned Judges cannot even remotely assume that the petitioner can venture to either give advice or intervene in a matter which is pending adjudication before the learned Judges of this Hon'ble Court. B. The observation of the learned Single Judge 'Because of this inaction of the Registry, the situation faced by the parties as well as the Court is to extend the timelines changing the above order and to the detriment of everyone.' is contrary to record and facts as there was no inaction at all and the filing of the Note is only in compliance of the oral directions given between 1:30 pm to 2:15 pm on 03-08-2021 by the learned Single Judge. C. It is contended that the note placed before the learned single Judge itself is self explanatory which says that a humble request was made seeking 15 days time for application by the Registrar (Judicial) and such observation is totally uncalled for and without any basis and the petitioner never made any attempt to interfere with the judicial proceedings of the Court being a Registrar (Judicial) working on administrative side. D. The observations/adverse remarks to be expunged, made by the learned single Judge are totally uncalled for in the situation and that the orders passed by the learned single Judge are contrary to the judgments of the Apex Court in ‘K’ A Judicial Officer, (2001) 3 SCC 54 , R.C. Tamrakar vs. Nidi Lekha, (2001) 8 SCC 431 , K.P. Tiwari vs. State of M.P., (1994) Supp 1 SCC 540, Braj Kishore Thakur vs. Union of India, (1997) 4 SCC 65 and ‘K’ A Judicial Officer vs. High Court of Andhra Pradesh, (2010) 11 SCC 722 17. It is further contended that, the learned single Judge passed an order without affording an opportunity, muchless a reasonable opportunity to explain and such observations made against the petitioner are contrary to the law laid down by the Courts and requested to set-aside the same. The details of observations and its outcome in different matters along with date are as follows : Sl. No. Case No. Date of the order Observations Outcome 1. The details of observations and its outcome in different matters along with date are as follows : Sl. No. Case No. Date of the order Observations Outcome 1. WP No.20600 of 2020 18.11.2020 It is also brought to my notice by many learned counsel that the Registry is not listing the matters on the dates fixed by the court and as per the orders of the court. This unfortunate situation is seen as per the representation of the learned counsel even in admission cases. It is also the complaint of the learned Advocates that the mention slips, whatever forwarded to the Registrar (Judicial), as per procedure in vogue, are not being attended to with required attention. This court is constrained to record these observations having regard to the continuous complaints being received from the learned members of the Bar on this day right from 10:30 AM. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to attend to all these problems as pointed out by learned counsel not only in this matter but also in many other matters. Otherwise, this court will be constrained to take certain steps on judicial side which the Registrar must note that they are quite unwarranted. The observations were expunged and set aside by the Bench in W.A. No. 419 of 2020. 2. S.A. Nos. 420 and 501 of 2011 23.07.2021 "Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, learned Senior Counsel, represents that when an enquiry was made on his behalf in respect of the records of the lower Court, it was informed by the Registry that upon admission of the matter alone, the records would be called for. This act on the part of the Registry is unpardonable and contemptuous. When the specific order of this Court dated 06.07.2021, directed the Registry to call for the records from the Court below, it is not the business of the concerned in the Registry to inform the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant likewise. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to appear before this Court on 28.07.2021, after making due enquiry as to who is responsible for this act of serious dereliction, for this Court to initiate if necessary, action for contempt.' Report was submitted by the petitioner as Registrar (Judicial) bringing the facts to the notice of learned single Judge. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to appear before this Court on 28.07.2021, after making due enquiry as to who is responsible for this act of serious dereliction, for this Court to initiate if necessary, action for contempt.' Report was submitted by the petitioner as Registrar (Judicial) bringing the facts to the notice of learned single Judge. Upon perusal of the said Report, the learned Single Judge by Order dated 28-07-2021 directed the Report to be returned to Registrar (Judicial) treating the matter confidential. 3. COMS Nos.1 and 2 of 2020 and CS No.3 of 2019 05.08.2021 Because of this inaction of the Registry, the situation faced by the parties as well as the Court is to extend the timelines changing the above order and to the detriment of everyone. The Registry, instead of assisting the Court, has in the manner created hurdles in going on with this matter. For this reason, the Registrar (Judicial) is called to the Court and asked to explain the nature of the note put by him. Curiously, this note is in the nature of direction to the Bench as to what should be done and what type of publication should be taken out. The Registrar (Judicial) has taken upon himself by placing a copy of the notice in C.S. No. 2 of 2019 bearing date 15.03.2021 as if for the guidance of the Court and as if a comparison is drawn between the order dated 22.07.2021 in this matter and the notice dated 15-03-2021 in C.S. No. 2 of 2019. This attempt of the Registrar (Judicial) is totally uncalled for. Neither the Court has solicited his advice in the matter nor any of the parties apparently has sought his intervention of this nature. Apparently, this note is in the nature of an attempt to get over the inaction in failing to abide the directions of this Court dated 22.07.2021. The way the note is presented by the Registrar (Judicial) is clearly depicting a picture of indiscipline and on the verge of the contempt. 4. COMS Nos.1 and 2 of 2020 and CS No.3 of 2019 16.08.2021 It is not known the steps taken by the learned Registrar General pursuant to the order dated 05.8.2021 to bring to the notice of the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the note put up by the Registrar (Judicial) referred to in the above order. 4. COMS Nos.1 and 2 of 2020 and CS No.3 of 2019 16.08.2021 It is not known the steps taken by the learned Registrar General pursuant to the order dated 05.8.2021 to bring to the notice of the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the note put up by the Registrar (Judicial) referred to in the above order. Learned Registrar General to take necessary action thereon if not initiated so far. Except the Registrar (Judicial), it is obvious none is responsible in placing such note as is evident from the note of the Registrar (Judicial) dated 04.8.2021. Subject matter in the present petition 18. It is specifically contended that, the observations/adverse remarks in the judicial order passed by the learned single Judge would adversely affect the career of the petitioner, since the learned single Judge attributed indiscipline to this petitioner which will mar his future career and therefore, the orders impugned in the writ petition are sought to be quashed by issuing a writ of certiorari. 19. Respondents did not file any counter affidavit. 20. During hearing, Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned senior counsel contended that, passing adverse remarks/ observations against a Registrar or any Judicial Officer is uncalled for and the Courts are expected to maintain restraint in making such adverse remarks while deciding judicial matters. Even otherwise, a notice is required to be issued before passing such an order, affording an opportunity to the petitioner/a Judicial Officer in compliance of principles of natural justice which would enable this petitioner to give explanation in writing. Instead of following the established procedure of compliance of principles of natural justice, the learned single Judge went on passing such adverse remarks/observations which are liable to be expunged in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in the decisions referred above. In addition to these judgments, the learned Senior Counsel placed on record judgment of the Apex Court in ‘K’ A Judicial Officer (referred supra), K.G. Shanti vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and others, (2021) 5 SCC 511 , Arun Ch. Upadhyay vs. Amarjit Borgohain and others, (2008) 4 Gau LR 348 and judgment of High Court of Chhattisgarh in Smt. Kalpana Majumdar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2016 SCC Online Chh 1929. Upadhyay vs. Amarjit Borgohain and others, (2008) 4 Gau LR 348 and judgment of High Court of Chhattisgarh in Smt. Kalpana Majumdar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2016 SCC Online Chh 1929. On the strength of the principles laid down in the above judgments, learned Senior Counsel requested to set-aside the orders to the extent of attributing indiscipline to this petitioner or expunge the adverse remarks passed against this petitioner by exercising certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 21. Whereas, Sri S. Nageswar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent-High Court admitted that, no notice was served on the petitioner before passing such remarks, while expressing his inability to disagree with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and other High Courts in the judgments referred above and requested to pass appropriate order(s), in accordance with law. 22. Considering rival contentions, perusing the material available on record, the points that need be answered by this Court is as follows : “Whether the Orders in COMS Nos. 1 & 2 of 2020 dated 05-08-2021 and CS No. 3 of 2019 dated 16-08-2021 were passed without affording any opportunity, muchless, reasonable opportunity to this petitioner and in violation of principles of natural justice. If so, whether passing such remarks amounts to deviation of principles laid down by the Apex Court to maintain judicial restraint while passing adverse remarks against a judicial officer while discharging his official duties either on administrative or judicial side. If so, whether a writ of certiorari be issued quashing the orders in COMS Nos. 1 & 2 of 2020 dated 05-08-2021 and CS No. 3 of 2019 dated 16-08-2021?” POINT : 23. Before deciding the real controversy, we find that it is appropriate to examine the scope of writ of certiorari for limited purpose. Article 226 of the Constitution of India preserves to the High Court power to issue writ of certiorari amongst others. The principles on which the writ of certiorari is issued are well-settled. The Seven Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath Vs. Article 226 of the Constitution of India preserves to the High Court power to issue writ of certiorari amongst others. The principles on which the writ of certiorari is issued are well-settled. The Seven Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath Vs. Ahmad Ishaque and Ors., (1955) 1 SCR 1104 laid down four propositions and summarized the principles of the Constitution Bench in The Custodian of Evacuee Property Bangalore v. Khan Saheb Abdul Shukoor etc, (1961) 3 SCR 855 as under:- "the High Court was not justified in looking into the order of December 2, 1952, as an appellate court, though it would be justified in scrutinizing that order as if it was brought before it under Article 226 of the Constitution for issue of a writ of certiorari. The limit of the jurisdiction of the High Court in issuing writs of certiorari was considered by this Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath Vs. Ahmad Ishaque (referred supra) and the following four propositions were laid down :- "(1) Certiorari will be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction; (2) Certiorari will also be issued when the Court or Tribunal acts illegally in the exercise of its undoubted jurisdiction, as when it decides without giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard, or violates the principles of natural justice; (3) The court issuing a writ of certiorari acts in exercise of a supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction. One consequence of this is that the court will not review findings of fact reached by the inferior court or tribunal, even if they be erroneous. (4) An error in the decision or determination itself may also be amenable to a writ of certiorari if it is a manifest error apparent on the face of the proceedings, e.g., when it is based on clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of law. In other words, it is a patent error which can be corrected by certiorari but not a mere wrong decision." 24. In the exercise of certiorari jurisdiction, the High Court proceeds on an assumption that a Court which has jurisdiction over a subject matter has the jurisdiction to decide wrongly as well as rightly. In other words, it is a patent error which can be corrected by certiorari but not a mere wrong decision." 24. In the exercise of certiorari jurisdiction, the High Court proceeds on an assumption that a Court which has jurisdiction over a subject matter has the jurisdiction to decide wrongly as well as rightly. The High Court would not, therefore, for the purpose of certiorari assign to itself the role of an Appellate Court and step into re-appreciating or evaluating the evidence and substitute its own findings in place of those arrived at by the inferior court. 25. In Nagendra Nath Bora & Anr. Vs. Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam & Ors., (1958) SCR 1240, the parameters for the exercise of jurisdiction, calling upon the issuance of writ of certiorari where so set out by the Constitution Bench : "The Common law writ, now called the order of certiorari, which has also been adopted by our Constitution, is not meant to take the place of an appeal where the Statute does not confer a right of appeal. Its purpose is only to determine, on an examination of the record, whether the inferior tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction or has not proceeded in accordance with the essential requirements of the law which it was meant to administer. Mere formal or technical errors, even though of law, will not be sufficient to attract this extra-ordinary jurisdiction. Where the errors cannot be said to be errors of law apparent on the face of the record, but they are merely errors in appreciation of documentary evidence or affidavits, errors in drawing inferences or omission to draw inference or in other words errors which a court sitting as a court of appeal only, could have examined and, if necessary, corrected and the appellate authority under a statute in question has unlimited jurisdiction to examine and appreciate the evidence in the exercise of its appellate or revisional jurisdiction and it has not been shown that in exercising its powers the appellate authority disregarded any mandatory provisions of the law but what can be said at the most was that it had disregarded certain executive instructions not having the force of law, there is not case for the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226." 26. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa & Anr., (1955) 1 SCR 250 , held that certiorari may be and is generally granted when a Court has acted (i) without jurisdiction, or (ii) in excess of its jurisdiction. The want of jurisdiction may arise from the nature of the subject-matter of the proceedings or from the absence of some preliminary proceedings or the court itself may not have been legally constituted or suffering from certain disability by reason of extraneous circumstances. Certiorari may also be issued if the court or tribunal though competent has acted in flagrant disregard of the rules or procedure or in violation of the principles of natural justice where no particular procedure is prescribed. An error in the decision or determination itself may also be amenable to a writ of certiorari subject to the following factors being available, if the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of law but a mere wrong decision is not amenable to a writ of certiorari. 27. Any authority or body of persons constituted by law or having legal authority to adjudicate upon questions affecting the rights of a subject and enjoined with a duty to act judicially or quasi-judicially is amenable to the certiorari jurisdiction of the High Court. The proceedings of judicial courts subordinate to High Court can be subjected to certiorari. 28. It is evident from the certiorari jurisdiction that, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue certiorari, it is purely discretionary in nature and the Court can exercise such power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if the orders passed by the authority are in violation of principles of natural justice or in violation of settled principles of law. Therefore, we would like to examine the issue before us with reference to the law to find out whether Orders in COMS Nos. 1 & 2 of 2020 dated 05-08-2021 and CS No. 3 of 2019 dated 16-08-2021 were passed in violation of the directions issued by the Apex Court from time to time. 29. Indisputably, the petitioner worked as Registrar (Judicial) and he is presently working as Registrar (Recruitment). The following are the Orders in COMS Nos. 1 & 2 of 2020 dated 05-08-2021 and CS No. 3 of 2019 dated 16-08-2021 were passed in violation of the directions issued by the Apex Court from time to time. 29. Indisputably, the petitioner worked as Registrar (Judicial) and he is presently working as Registrar (Recruitment). The following are the Orders in COMS Nos. 1 & 2 of 2020 dated 05-08-2021 and CS No. 3 of 2019 dated 16-08-2021 which allegedly adversely affect or mar the career of this petitioner, being a Judicial Officer, having worked for more than nine years as a District Judge having selected at Entry Level by Direct Recruitment. COMS Nos. 1 and 2 of 2020 and C.S.No.3 of 2019 dated 22.07.2021 Heard Sri S.V.S.S. Siva Ram, learned counsel for the plaintiffs in COMS No.1 of 2020. Sri V. Nitesh, learned counsel for the plaintiff in COMS No.2 of 2020, Sri Challa Gunarajan, learned Standing Counsel for Kakinda Seaports Limited appearing for the third defendant in COMS No.1 of 2020 and Sri Santosh Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the second defendant company stated to be the owner of the first defendant vessel. Sri Santosh Yadav, learned counsel for the second defendant represents that it has filed CPIP No.4404 of 2019 before the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai under I.B.C. Code, and it is pending adjudication. Learned counsel for the second defendant reported no objection for sale of the first defendant vessel while requesting that the sale proceedings therefrom be kept in deposit for the purpose of distribution amongst all entitled to. In the circumstances, sale of first defendant vessel is directed as per the Memo filed on behalf of the third defendant on 19.02.2021, and upon the terms agreed to by the parties concerned. The reserve price is fixed at Rs.12 Crores. The interested parties shall deposit 25% of this reserve price while filing their bid as earnest money and it shall be by means of US Dollars to be credited to the account stated in the bid document. This earnest money so deposited along with the bid shall not carry any interest and if any bidder is unsuccessful or intends to withdraw his bid midway the same shall be refunded and that shall not carry interest. The intending bidders may inspect the first defendant Vessel at Kakinada Harbour between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. on all working days from 05.08.2021 onwards to 13.08.2021. The intending bidders may inspect the first defendant Vessel at Kakinada Harbour between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. on all working days from 05.08.2021 onwards to 13.08.2021. The intending bidders shall leave a request in writing to the Harbour Master, Kakinda Seaports Limited, Kakinada, one day in advance suggesting the date on which they intend to carry out the inspection and the authorities of Kakinada Port Trust shall give access to such intending bidders upon satisfying of their identity and also as to the purpose of inspection of this Vessel. Expenses relating to this inspection incurred by Kakinada Seaport Limited, if any, shall be borne by the intending bidders. Publish in TIMES OF INDIA and FINANCIAL EXPRESS having All India circulation by 05.08.2021 and copies of the same shall be filed into the Registry by 05.08.2021. Bids shall be submitted by 20.08.2021 and opening the bids is on 02.09.2021. The successful bidder shall pay the balance bid amount on or before 16.09.2021. Publication shall also carry out the proforma of the bid document. All the parties to the Suits are permitted to publicize the proposed sale of the first defendant Vessel and third defendant Kakinada Seaports Limited, Kakinada shall post on its Website. The Kakinada Port Trust also is permitted to post this bid document on its official website. The third defendant Kakinada Seaports Limited, Kakinada is directed to deposit Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty lakhs) to the credit of the Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati tentatively to meet the publication expenses, and in case, these expenses exceed the above sum, the company shall pay such further sum required within the time directed by the Registry. All the expenses incurred by Kakindada Seaport Limited, Kakinada - the third defendant, shall be defrayed from the sale proceeds, realized upon sale of the first defendant Vessel first and balance alone shall be available for distribution for those entitled to. List on 05.08.2021. 30. All the expenses incurred by Kakindada Seaport Limited, Kakinada - the third defendant, shall be defrayed from the sale proceeds, realized upon sale of the first defendant Vessel first and balance alone shall be available for distribution for those entitled to. List on 05.08.2021. 30. The petitioner explained the outcome of such adverse orders in the table referred above, while contending that, no opportunity was afforded to this petitioner while passing adverse orders and supported his action, as it was prepared on the oral directions issued by the learned single Judge of this Court and that, the note file is only in the nature of narrating the facts and not in the nature of advise or it does not amount to interference with the judicial functions of the learned single Judge of this Court. 31. We called for the record, verified and found that the petitioner neither made any suggestion nor interfered with the duties of the learned single Judge, while discharging his duties. It is only in the nature of furnishing information about the cost of notification in the newspapers as stated above after asserting the price of such publication of notification, being charged by the newspapers. Since the learned single Judge directed only to deposit Rs.20-00 lakhs towards publication of notification, whereas the publication of notification in one newspaper i.e. Times of India costs Rs.30-00 lakhs, the publication in other newspaper i.e. Financial Express was not ascertained by the time the note was placed before the learned single Judge. As suggested by the learned single Judge, the notice and annexures were modified to reduce the price of publication. However, requested to publish notice for another 15 days in the said notice, but, placed before the learned single Judge, an identical notice issued by this Court in other similar case. Mere placing of proforma of notice before the learned single Judge issued in similar or identical case would not amount to advising the learned single Judge or intrusion in the judicial functions of the learned single Judge. It was placed only for perusal and for guidance. Even otherwise, such act of the petitioner would not constitute indiscipline, as observed by the learned single Judge. 32. It is an undisputed fact that, no opportunity was given to the petitioner for submitting explanation before passing adverse Orders in COMS Nos. It was placed only for perusal and for guidance. Even otherwise, such act of the petitioner would not constitute indiscipline, as observed by the learned single Judge. 32. It is an undisputed fact that, no opportunity was given to the petitioner for submitting explanation before passing adverse Orders in COMS Nos. 1 & 2 of 2020 dated 05-08-2021 and CS No. 3 of 2019 dated 16-08-2021. The petitioner was called to the Court and questioned, which tantamounts to degrading the Judicial Officer before number of advocates sitting in the Court Hall, which will seriously cause prejudice to the esteem of this petitioner, being a Registrar and it will have its own adverse impact on the career of the Judicial Officer/petitioner herein. Therefore, instead of passing such adverse remarks/adverse orders, straight-away the learned single Judge would have issued a notice calling for explanation of this petitioner before passing such adverse orders impugned in the writ petition. 33. Time and again, the Hon’ble Supreme Court issued certain directions to the Judicial officers who are presiding the Higher Courts to maintain judicial restraint while passing such adverse orders against judicial officers and passing orders without issuing proper notice is illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set-aside. The Apex Court in ‘K’ A Judicial Officer (referred supra) deprecated the practice of making such adverse remarks or observations against a Judicial Officer while exercising appellate jurisdiction or otherwise. The Hon’ble Apex Court was concerned with the observations made by the High Court against a judicial officer who is a serving member of subordinate judiciary and held that, under the constitutional scheme control over the district courts and courts subordinate thereto has been vested in the High Courts. The control so vested is administrative, judicial and disciplinary. The role of High Court is also of a friend, philosopher and guide of judiciary subordinate to it. The strength of power is not displayed solely in cracking a whip on errors, mistakes or failures; the power should be so wielded as to have propensity to prevent and to ensure exclusion of repetition if committed once innocently or unwittingly, "Pardon the error but not its repetition". The power to control is not to be exercised solely by welding a teacher's cane; the members of subordinate judiciary look up at the High Court for the power to control to be exercised with parent-like care and affection. The power to control is not to be exercised solely by welding a teacher's cane; the members of subordinate judiciary look up at the High Court for the power to control to be exercised with parent-like care and affection. The exercise of statutory jurisdiction, appellate or revisional and the exercise of constitutional power to control and supervise the functioning of the district courts and courts subordinate thereto empowers the High Court to formulate an opinion and place it on record not only on the judicial working but also on the conduct of the judicial officers. The existence of power in higher echelons of judiciary to make observations even extending to criticism incorporated in judicial orders cannot be denied, however, the High Courts have to remember that criticisms had observations touching a subordinate judicial officer incorporated in judicial pronouncements have their own mischievous infirmities. Firstly the judicial officer is condemned unheard which is violative of principles of natural justice. A member of subordinate judiciary himself dispensing justice should not be denied this minimal natural justice so as to shield against being condemned unheard. Secondly, the harm caused by such criticism or observation may be incapable of being undone. Such criticism of the judicial officer contained in a judgment, reportable or not, is a pronouncement in open and therefore becomes public. The same judge who found himself persuaded, sitting on judicial side, to make observations guided by the facts of a single case against a subordinate judge may, sitting on administrative side and apprised of overall meritorious performance of the subordinate judge, may irretrievably regret his having made those observations on judicial side the harming effect whereof even he himself cannot remove on administrative side. Thirdly, human nature being what it is, such criticism of a judicial officer Contained in the judgment of a higher court gives the litigating party a sense of victory not only over his opponent but also over the judge who had decided the case against him. This is subversive of judicial authority of the deciding judge. Fourthly, seeking expunging of the observations by a judicial officer by filing an appeal or petition of his own reduces him to the status of a litigant arrayed as a party before the High Court or Supreme Court-a situation not very happy from the point of view of the functioning of the judicial system. Fourthly, seeking expunging of the observations by a judicial officer by filing an appeal or petition of his own reduces him to the status of a litigant arrayed as a party before the High Court or Supreme Court-a situation not very happy from the point of view of the functioning of the judicial system. May be for the purpose of pleading his cause he has to take the assistance of a legal practitioner and such legal practitioner may be one practising before him. Look at the embarrassment involved. And last but not the least, the possibility of a single or casual aberration of an otherwise honest, upright and righteous judge being caught unawares in the net of adverse observations cannot be ruled out. Such an incident would have a seriously demoralising effect not only on him but also on his colleagues. If all this is avoidable why it should not be avoided? The conduct of a judicial officer, unworthy of him, having come to the notice of a judge of the High Court hearing a matter on the judicial side, the lis may be disposed of by pronouncing upon the merits thereof as found by him but avoiding in the judicial pronouncement criticism of, or observations of the 'conduct' of the subordinate judicial officer who had decided the case under scrutiny. Simultaneously but separately in-office proceedings may be drawn up inviting attention of Hon'ble Chief Justice to the facts describing the conduct of the subordinate judge concerned by sending a confidential letter or note to the Chief Justice. It will thereafter be open to the Chief Justice to deal with the subordinate judicial officer either at his own level or through the inspecting judge or by placing the matter before the Full Court for its consideration. The action so taken would all be on the administrative side. The subordinate judge concerned would have an opportunity of clarifying his position or putting-forth the circumstances under which he acted. He would not be condemned unheard and if the decision be adverse to him, it being on administrative side, he would have some remedy available to him under the law. He would not be rendered remediless. 34. The subordinate judge concerned would have an opportunity of clarifying his position or putting-forth the circumstances under which he acted. He would not be condemned unheard and if the decision be adverse to him, it being on administrative side, he would have some remedy available to him under the law. He would not be rendered remediless. 34. Similarly, in R.C. Tamrakar vs. Nidi Lekha (referred above), the Apex Court held as follows : “Time and again this Court had deprecated the practice of passing unsavoury remarks against subordinate judicial officers by High Courts but unfortunately the direction of this Court has not percolated down to High Courts. In view of what has been said repeatedly by this Court regarding passing of adverse remarks against subordinate judicial officers by the High Court, we expunge remarks made against the applicant by the High Court in the impugned judgment as these were uncalled for. It is unfortunate that the concerned judicial officer had to approach the highest court of land spending considerable time and money. If any adverse entry has been recorded in the confidential report of the officer, it shall be deleted and treated as washed off from the record. The application is allowed.” 35. In K.P. Tiwari vs. State of M.P., the Hon’ble Apex Court held that, the higher courts every day come across orders of the lower courts which are not justified either in law or in fact and modify them or set them aside. That is one of the functions of the superior courts. Our legal system acknowledges the fallibility of the judges and hence provides for appeals and revisions. A judge tries to discharge his duties to the best of his capacity. While doing so, sometimes, he is likely to err. It is well said that a judge who has not committed an error is yet to be born. And that applies to judges at all levels from the lowest to the highest. Sometimes, the difference in views of the higher and the lower courts is purely a result of a difference in approach and perception. On such occasions, the lower courts are not necessarily wrong and the higher courts always right. And that applies to judges at all levels from the lowest to the highest. Sometimes, the difference in views of the higher and the lower courts is purely a result of a difference in approach and perception. On such occasions, the lower courts are not necessarily wrong and the higher courts always right. It has also to be remembered that the lower judicial officers mostly work under a charged atmosphere and are constantly under a psychological pressure with all the contestants and their lawyers almost breathing down their necks - more correctly up to their nostrils. They do not have the benefit of a detached atmosphere of the higher courts to think coolly and decide patiently. Every error, however gross it may look, should not, therefore, be attributed to improper motive. It is possible that a particular judicial officer may be consistently passing orders creating a suspicion of judicial conduct which is not wholly or even partly attributable to innocent functioning. Even in such cases, the proper course for the higher court to adopt is to make note of his conduct in the confidential record of his work and to use it on proper occasions. The judges in the higher courts have also a duty to ensure judicial discipline and respect for the judiciary from all concerned. The respect for the judiciary is not enhanced when judges at the lower level are criticised intemperately and castigated publicly. No greater damage can be done to the administration of justice and to the confidence of the people in the judiciary than when the judges of the higher courts publicly express lack of faith in the subordinate judges for one reason or the other. It must be remembered that the officers against whom such strictures are publicly passed, stand condemned for ever in the eyes of their subordinates and of the members of the public. No better device can be found to destroy the judiciary from within. The judges must, therefore, exercise self-restraint. There are ways and ways of expressing disapproval of the orders of the subordinate courts but attributing motives to them is certainly not one of them. That is the surest way to take the judiciary downhill. 36. In Braj Kishore Thakur vs. Union of India (referred above), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that, Judicial restraint is a virtue. A virtue which shall be concommitant of every judicial disposition. That is the surest way to take the judiciary downhill. 36. In Braj Kishore Thakur vs. Union of India (referred above), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that, Judicial restraint is a virtue. A virtue which shall be concommitant of every judicial disposition. It is an attribute of a judge which he is obliged to keep refurbished time to time, particularly while dealing with matters before him whether in exercise of appellate or revisional or other supervisory jurisdiction. Higher courts must remind themselves constantly that higher tiers are provided in the judicial hierarchy to set right errors which could possibly have crept in the findings or orders of courts at the lower tiers. Such powers certainly not for belching diatribe at judicial personages in lower cadre. It is well to remember the words of a jurist that "a judge who has not committed any error is yet to be born". No greater damage can be caused to the administration of justice and to the confidence of people in judicial institutions when judges of higher courts publicly express lack of faith in the subordinate judges. It has been said, time and again, that respect for judiciary is not in hands by using intemperate language and by casting aspersions against lower judiciary. It is well to remember that a judicial officer against whom aspersions are made in the judgment could not appear before the higher court to defend his order. Judges of higher courts must, therefore, exercise greater judicial restraint and adopt greater care when they are tempted to employ strong terms against lower judiciary. 37. In ‘K’ A Judicial Officer vs. High Court of Andhra Pradesh (referred above), the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows : “The observations and remarks made by the Division Bench of the High Court are bound to adversely affect the image of the appellant in the eyes of the public, his credibility as a judicial officer and also affects his career. We are sure that if the Division Bench of the High Court had kept in view the judgments of this Court, it would not have made disparaging remarks against the appellant, which, in the facts and circumstances of the case, were not at all called for.” 38. We are sure that if the Division Bench of the High Court had kept in view the judgments of this Court, it would not have made disparaging remarks against the appellant, which, in the facts and circumstances of the case, were not at all called for.” 38. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the other judgments of the Supreme Court in K.G. Shanti vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and others (referred above), where the Apex Court held that, by making such adverse remarks, the Officer could not be condemned unheard and the court should be circumspect in using such language while penning down its order qua judicial officers and, thus, use of this language cannot be appreciated, whatever may have been the conduct of the Officer. Further, if the High Court found that the impugned judgment of the Tribunal had grave errors casting some doubt on the performance of the officer, the matter could be directed to be taken on the administrative side in which case, the Officer could explain his/her conduct and he/she would have got an opportunity to put forth point of view and then it would have been open on the administrative side, if so advised, whether to take some action or not. 39. In Awani Kumar Upadhyay vs. High Court of Allahabad, (2013) 12 SCC 392 , the Apex Court categorically held that there cannot be an adverse remark made against a judicial officer without first giving an opportunity to the judicial officer to explain his conduct. In that context, in fact it has been observed that while our legal system acknowledges the fallibility of the Judges and thus, provides for appeals and revisions, the lower judicial officers mostly work under charged atmosphere and are under psychological pressure and do not have the facilities which are available in the High Court. 40. In Raghubir Saran vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1964 SC 1 the Court held that, the High Court being a higher Court of records with plenary jurisdiction, have ample power to examine and expunge, if necessary, any disparaging or objectionable remarks/observation made against an individual, officer of the subordinate Courts and counsels etc. from any judgment and order. 40. In Raghubir Saran vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1964 SC 1 the Court held that, the High Court being a higher Court of records with plenary jurisdiction, have ample power to examine and expunge, if necessary, any disparaging or objectionable remarks/observation made against an individual, officer of the subordinate Courts and counsels etc. from any judgment and order. It is true that a person aggrieved by a disparaging or an objectionable remark made by the Court is not without any remedy as he may approach the High Court invoking its inherent jurisdiction seeking expunction of objectionable remark which jurisdiction vests with in the High Court by virtue of being a Court of record and also possessing inherent power. 41. In State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Mohd. Naim, AIR 1964 SC 703 , the Apex Court held that, "it has been judicially recognised that in the matter of making disparaging remarks against persons or authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before courts of law in cases to be decided by them, it is relevant to consider (a) whether the party whose conduct is in question is before the court or has an opportunity of explaining or defending himself; (b) whether there is evidence on record bearing on that conduct justifying the remarks; and (c) whether it is necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part thereof, to animadvert on that conduct. It has also been recognised that judicial pronouncements must be judicial in nature, and should not normally depart from sobriety, moderation and reserve." 42. The views expressed in the case of Raghubir Saran and Mohd. Naim (supra) are reiterated in A.M. Mathur vs. Pramod Kumar Gupta, (1990) 2 SCC 533 and ‘K’ A Judicial Officer, In Re (referred supra) and the test laid down in Raghubir Saran and Mohd. Naim (supra) case is still followed as guiding principles while adjudicating cases relating to expunction of disparaging or objectionable remarks/observation made by the Court against individual, officer and counsel etc. Further, in Samya Sett. vs. Shambhu Sarkar, (2005) 6 SCC 767 , the Apex Court held that any disparaging or objectionable remark/observation made by a learned Single Judge of a High Court against the Appellant therein should be deleted as not justified if such disparaging or objectionable remarks/observation made by the Ld. Further, in Samya Sett. vs. Shambhu Sarkar, (2005) 6 SCC 767 , the Apex Court held that any disparaging or objectionable remark/observation made by a learned Single Judge of a High Court against the Appellant therein should be deleted as not justified if such disparaging or objectionable remarks/observation made by the Ld. Judge of the High Court is not necessary for deciding the controversy raised before the Court nor an integral part of the judgment. 43. Following the above judgments, the Apex Court in Arun Ch. Upadhyay vs. Amarjit Borgohain and others (referred above) held that, two proposition of law emerged for consideration before the Division Bench of Gauhati High Court. Firstly, it is axiomatic about the existence of inherent power and jurisdiction of this Court, as such, a person aggrieved by any disparaging or objectionable remark/ observation made by a Court against him can approach the High Court invoking its inherent power and plenary jurisdiction to consider for expunction of the same from the judicial record. Secondly, the consistent policy of the Court in such matter is to exercise restraint from passing any disparaging or objectionable remark/observation against individual, officer, counsel, etc. unless such disparaging or objectionable remark/observation is absolutely required for deciding the controversy raised before the Court and such disparaging or objectionable remark/observation should also necessarily form an integral part of the judgment and order of the Court. 44. But, in the instant case on record, the learned single Judge did not maintain judicial restraint from passing disparaging or objectionable remarks against the Registrar in the cadre of District Judge, without giving any opportunity to explain and those remarks are unwarranted for deciding the real controversy raised before the Court in CS No. 3 of 2019 and it would not form part of the main judgment. In such case, the learned single Judge ought to have maintained judicial restraint while passing such adverse remarks or objections which would mar the career of the officer in future, being a Direct Recruitee District Judge. Therefore, the principle laid down in the above judgment would apply to the present facts of the case directly. 45. In such case, the learned single Judge ought to have maintained judicial restraint while passing such adverse remarks or objections which would mar the career of the officer in future, being a Direct Recruitee District Judge. Therefore, the principle laid down in the above judgment would apply to the present facts of the case directly. 45. Finally, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of High Court of Chattisgarh in Smt. Kalpana Majumdar vs. State of Chhattisgarh (referred above), wherein, the Court placed reliance on ‘K’ A Judicial Officer (referred above), Panchanan Banerji vs. Upendra Nath Bhattacharji, AIR 1927 All 193 and Niranjan Patnaik vs. Sashibhusan Kar, AIR 1986 SC 819 , wherein it was held as follows : "The High Court, as the Supreme Court of revision, must be deemed to have power to see that Courts below do not unjustly and without any lawful excuse take away the character of a party or of a witness or of a counsel before it." This Court went on to add :- "It is, therefore, settled law that harsh or disparaging remarks are not to be made against persons and authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before Court of law unless it is really necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part thereof to animadvert on that conduct. We hold that the adverse remarks made against the appellant were neither justified nor called for." 46. It is clear from the above perspective judicial pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and other High Courts that, Higher Courts should not pass disparaging or adverse remarks against any subordinate judicial officer while discharging their duties without affording an opportunity to him to explain and unless they are necessary for adjudication of the real dispute, no such remarks be made. But, in the present facts of the case, the learned single Judge of High Court of Andhra Pradesh even without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to explain, passed such adverse remarks/objections which will mar the future career of the petitioner, being a Judicial Officer having appointed as a Direct Recruitee District Judge. That apart, those observations are not needed for deciding the real controversy. That apart, those observations are not needed for deciding the real controversy. Therefore, the learned single Judge did not maintain judicial restraint, as directed by the Apex Court in various judgments referred above and passed such adverse remarks against this petitioner which are uncalled for in the present set of circumstances. 47. The High Court is the guardian of Subordinate Judicial Offices to take care of them and protect the officers against any unwarranted situation(s). Normally, the officers are not being posted in their native districts and most of the officers are working in the station having come down from far of place in the State and the officers are working in totally a charged atmosphere in the Courts on account of their self imposed restrictions or otherwise. In a similar situation, the Apex Court in K.P. Tiwari vs. State of M.P., 1994 Supp. (1) SCC 540 observed that, "It has also to be remembered that the lower judicial officers mostly work under a charged atmosphere and are constantly under a psychological pressure with all the contestants and their lawyers almost breathing down their necks more correctly up to their nostrils. They do not have the benefit of a detached atmosphere of the higher courts to think coolly and decide patiently. Every error, however gross it may look, should not, therefore, be attributed to improper motive." 48. The officers in the judicial process, if commit any act which is unbecoming or found guilty for misconduct, higher Courts will not leave any officer unpunished. Thus, the allegations made against the officer and against the entire judicial institution in the State of Andhra Pradesh, which is an identifiable body with certainty, would tend to lower the prestige of the judiciary. The officers, who are trained, will never face the risk of judicial hypersensitivity. The very nature of the judicial function makes judges sympathetic and responsive. Their very training blesses them with 'insensitivity', as opposed to hypersensitivity. Judges are always seeking good reasons to explain wrong conduct. They know there are always two sides to a coin. They neither give nor take offence because they deal with persons and situations impersonally, though with understanding judges more than others realize the foibles, the frustrations, the undercurrents and the tensions of litigants and litigation. But, as elsewhere, lines have to be drawn. They know there are always two sides to a coin. They neither give nor take offence because they deal with persons and situations impersonally, though with understanding judges more than others realize the foibles, the frustrations, the undercurrents and the tensions of litigants and litigation. But, as elsewhere, lines have to be drawn. The strains and mortification of litigation cannot be allowed to lead litigants to tarnish, terrorize and destroy the system of administration of justice by vilification of judges. It is not that judges need be protected; judges may well take care of themselves. It is the right and interest of the public in the due administration of justice that has to be protected as observed in Asharam M. Jain vs. A.T. Gupta and others, 1983 AIR 1151. In view of these observations of the Apex Court in Asharam M. Jain (supra), it is the need of the day to protect the honest judicial officers by higher Courts to instill confidence on them to administer justice in accordance with law, otherwise it is difficult for any officer to discharge his functions in judicial process effectively since the officer constantly has to put a guard observing such scurrilous, vilificatory and unfounded attack and criticism made against him. In such case, the Presiding Officers of the Courts will not discharge their duties as effectively as possible. 49. The public have an interest, an abiding and a real interest, and a vital stake in the effective; and orderly administration of justice, because, unless justice is so administered, there is the peril of all rights and liberties perishing. The Court has the duty of protecting the interest of the public in the due administration of justice. 50. Though the petitioner herein who was the Registrar (Judicial) discharging his judicial and administrative functions, having control over the judicial sections in the High Court, not directly connected with postings, etc, but placed a note before the learned single Judge. Such placing a note would not amount to acting adverse to the interest of the judicial institution or advise the learned single Judge of the Court. The action of the petitioner is in the interest of the institutional integrity, but not otherwise. Such placing a note would not amount to acting adverse to the interest of the judicial institution or advise the learned single Judge of the Court. The action of the petitioner is in the interest of the institutional integrity, but not otherwise. That too, placing note by giving information about the cost of paper publication is not with any malafide intention, but only to comply with the direction, subject to the direction for deposit of the amount required for publication of notification. Therefore, such act of the petitioner/Registrar (Judicial) is neither required for adjudication of the real controversy is only for rendering speedy justice. Apart from that, the adverse remarks/objections narrated above are neither required for adjudication of real controversy nor warranted in the circumstances. Hence, by applying the law laid down in the above judgments, this Court being the Court of record has to expunge the remarks passed against the Registrar (Judicial) who is discharging administrative duties, though a Judicial Officer originally, since his career cannot be condemned without affording any opportunity. 51. In view of our foregoing discussion, we find that, it is a fit case to expunge the remarks or set-aside the Orders in COMS Nos. 1 & 2 of 2020 dated 05-08-2021 and CS No. 3 of 2019 dated 16-08-2021, affecting adversely against the petitioner by exercising certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 52. In the result, writ petition is allowed, declaring the observations/ remarks in Orders in COMS Nos. 1 & 2 of 2020 dated 05-08-2021 and CS No. 3 of 2019 dated 16-08-2021 as arbitrary, while setting-aside the observations/ remarks in Orders in COMS Nos. 1 & 2 of 2020 dated 05-08 2021 and CS No. 3 of 2019 dated 16-08-2021. No costs. 53. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.