The judge orders the registry to destroy his dictated order, which was kept in a sealed envelope before the judgment

A Madras High Court judge has directed the registry to quash an unspoken order he had drafted and kept in a sealed cover. The order was passed as multiple proceedings relating to the case had taken place both in a division bench of the Supreme Court and in the Supreme Court without waiting for him to pass the order.

Justice K. Kumaresh Babu said there would be no useful purpose in passing the order now due to the multitude of proceedings that had taken place after he reserved orders on an application filed by the Madras Race Club (MRC) to restrain the Tamil Nadu government from interfering with the vast racecourse area at Guindy in Chennai.

The judge pointed out that he had reserved orders on the application on August 18, 2025, and dictated the order to his personal secretary on October 6. However, on October 14, the state government belatedly filed an appeal before the Division Bench challenging its July 4 order, directing both the government and the MRC to maintain the status quo until further orders.

The judge said he only came to know about the appeal through social media posts and would have passed the orders immediately if the government lawyer concerned had informed him of the urgency of the matter in view of the approaching monsoon and the need to strengthen the ponds dug in the property.

However, the government chose to appeal against its earlier order and the Division Bench also acceded to the appeal by changing the order of status quo and allowing the government to fortify the ponds through an interim order. Thereafter, the Supreme Court, by passing orders on a fresh appeal favored by the MRC, allowed the government to also establish an eco-park on the Guindy property.

After disposing of MRC’s special leave petition on October 30, the Supreme Court also asked the Division Bench of the High Court to dispose of the matter at the earliest. Following the Supreme Court’s orders, the state government urged the Division Bench to stay all further proceedings in MRC’s petition pending before the single judge, and the Bench approved the stay on November 5.

“In view of the foregoing circumstances, this court departs from the motion and directs the clerk’s office to vacate the order executed and retained in its sealed envelope,” the judge wrote.

Though lawyer Vaibhav R. Venkatesh, representing MRC, requested the judge not to hear the case until his client could approach the High Court and get clarification that he wanted the single judge and not the Division Bench to dispose of the matter first, the judge said, he was not inclined to accept the request.