The Public interest points are :
1. Such Court Officers are always appointed by court with a rider - "to submit monthly accounts with court". Please notice that there is
no provision of audit by a court approved CA. Court officer (read receivers or court appointed administrator -pendalite) can submit anything as "proper accounting ". Misappropriation of fund can not be ruled out in the absence of expert scrutiny.
2. Judges get transferred from one state court to another state court and even their charges changes within the court. Many such court appointed officers do not submit any accounts at all or file some abra-cabra with the court clerk taking this advantage. Courts are over burdened with cases. even proper complain of mis-appropriation or impropriety by such court appointed Receiver or Administrator takes 5 years to be heard or judged.
3. Such Receiver / Administrators sell off litigant properties in a so called "open tender" to meet exigency (whatever it means) expenses. It is always unknown which court has allowed such sale by Receivers / Administrators.
4. Justice Soumitra Sen of Calcutta High Court had to return Rs 54 lac (in June 2006) under court order of Brother Judge Justice Kalyan Kumar Sen Gupta as he was court appointed receiver
in a case and the designated bank a/c under court order did not have that much of fund left. Since then Justice Soumitra sen is on leave (My last information is that.)
If it can happen in Calcutta High Court - I can well imagine the conditions in district courts where supervision will be of further low quality and litigants in district court are really poor (at least in West Bengal) for effective chasing or follow up.
5. I have a specific case example in my hand for which I want to initiate action under
RTI Act.