Judgment :- 1. This is an application presented by the applicant in the O.P. for directing the respondent-State for producing in court 6 documents listed in the affidavit accompanying the application. 2. The O.P. itself is for a writ of certiorari to bring up the proceedings terminating in the order removing the applicant from service dated 9.10.1951 and the order dated 25.1.1952 rejecting his application for review of the aforesaid order. The entire records of the proceedings leading up to those orders are those to be removed to this court for purposes of the Original Petition. This Court being satisfied upon preliminary arguments that there is a case for consideration, issued notice to the respondent. Pursuant to that notice respondent has not returned any document but has filed a counter-affidavit and produced 33 documents stating them to be for purposes of evidence on behalf of the respondent. The proper return to an order issuing notice upon an application of this description should be a return producing the records forming the subject-matter of the proceedings in certiorari. Rules have not been framed by this High Court as regards the procedure applicable to Original Petitions. In the absence of such rules, it cannot be regarded that the respondent was in default in not having made the return as aforesaid. The respondent however will now make the return in the manner above indicated. 3. Nos. 2 and 6 in the aforesaid list have been produced in court by the respondent. Exception is taken for the production of Nos. 1, 3,4 and 5 in the said list. Item 5 is the Rules of Business stated to have been framed by the Raj Pramukh. Obviously they cannot form part of the proceedings sought to be brought up in the O.P. for purposes of quashing the orders impeached. The Advocate-General however has no objection to make it available for us for reference for purposes of this proceeding and we rest content with that assurance. As we understand it, the records of the proceedings sought to be quashed must commence with the preliminaries for placing the petitioner under suspension. Every document in the Secretariat file starting therefrom and terminating in the two orders sought to be quashed must necessarily form part of the proceedings. 4. The decisions referred to in items 1 and 3, as we understand the position, must also be in the said file. Every document in the Secretariat file starting therefrom and terminating in the two orders sought to be quashed must necessarily form part of the proceedings. 4. The decisions referred to in items 1 and 3, as we understand the position, must also be in the said file. The learned Advocate General mentioned that the notes of discussions referred to in those items are non-existent and if they be so, it is a matter to be disclosed clearly by a further affidavit as the one filed already by the Chief Secretary to Govt. is not clear upon the subject. 5. The second document read in the order dated 9.10.1951 is the letter from the Public Service Commissioner. The correspondence leading to it and the further correspondence, if any, thereafter, should necessarily form part of the aforesaid proceedings. They have all to be produced and no privilege could be claimed in respect of any one of them. 6. If any document not expressly excluded heretofore forming part of the said proceedings is apprehended to be injurious to public interest if disclosed, liberty is given to the respondent to produce the same in Court in a sealed cover with an explanatory note and the said document will be dealt with by the court appropriately. The administration of justice by the court is a part of the administration of the country and the court is certainly as much interested as anybody else in the general administration of the State as it is in the administration of justice specially entrusted to it. 7. The certiorari in this application is not for removal of the records to this court as evidence. Had it been such, it would have been competent for the State to take objection as was done here at the hearing, based on Ss. 123, 124 and 162 of the Indian Evidence Act. The contention urged by the State was that because the items whose production is objected to constitute "affairs of State" within the meaning of S. 123, until the court decides whether those items do or do not form part of the "affairs of State" within that section, no order for their production should be made. The contention urged by the State was that because the items whose production is objected to constitute "affairs of State" within the meaning of S. 123, until the court decides whether those items do or do not form part of the "affairs of State" within that section, no order for their production should be made. It is not necessary for us to give an opinion upon this question because we regard this application as only a part of the main O.P. for certiorari to bring up the proceedings for purposes of quashing the orders in which the proceeding terminated. This is how we understand the C.M.P. as merely being a part of the O.P. to bring up the records for the purpose of quashing the orders impeached. 8. The respondent is directed to comply with this order immediately. Allowed.