ORDER:- This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution to quash the order Annexure-A passed by Shri Radhamohon Singh, Subordinate Judge, No.1 on 24-9-1960, when he was performing the duties of the District Judge during the absence of the District Judge - Shri Chandra Prakash from the Station. In passing the order he has styled himself as "in charge District and Sessions Judge Manipur". 2. The District and Sessions Judge - Shri Chandra Prakash was absent on duty from Manipur from 8-9-1960. On 1-9-1960, he passed an order that Shri M. Radhamohon Singh, Subordinate and Additional Sessions Judge shall remain in charge of the Office of the District and Sessions Judge and was authorised to dispose of civil cases as specified in Sec.36 of the Manipur (Courts) Act, 1955 during his absence. On 23-9-1960, the Assistant Nazir of the District and Sessions Judge submitted a note stating that there were only 4 Bailiffs for all the Courts and it had become very difficult to arrange properly for issue of writs and processes sent by the Courts to the Bailiffs for execution, if proper time was not fixed and that all the Courts may be requested to send their notices, writs and summons at least 30 days ahead of the date due for the hearing and that regarding writs for delivery of possession in which Police help was required, the time fixed may be at least 20 days before the date fixed for execution. 3. On this note, Shri Radhamohon Singh styling himself as "in charge District and Sessions Judge, Manipur" passed the order, which is now complained against, on 24-9-1960. In that he stated that the work of the Nazaret had considerably increased and it was hardly possible to cope with the work with only 6 process servers and 4 bailiffs for timely execution of all kinds of notices and warrants. He therefore requested all the Presiding Officers to send notices and warrants at least 30 days ahead of the dates fixed for hearing and said that in the case of urgent notices and writs prior information should be had from the Nazir of the Court in writing before they were issued. He therefore requested all the Presiding Officers to send notices and warrants at least 30 days ahead of the dates fixed for hearing and said that in the case of urgent notices and writs prior information should be had from the Nazir of the Court in writing before they were issued. He further directed that in the case of writs for delivery of possession with the help of the Police the date for execution of the warrant should be fixed in consultation with the Police Department to be made in writing through the District Court. This order was in the form of an Office Memorandum. After the arrival of the District Judge - Shri Chandra Prakash in station, he approved of this Office memorandum on 9-11-1960. 4. The present petition was filed by a litigant on 14-12-1960 to quash the said memorandum. It was argued that the said memorandum would amount to a rule and that as only the High Court had the power to issue rules, the memorandum was issued without jurisdiction. It was also pointed out that the Judge in charge under Sec.36 of the Manipur (Courts) Act, 1955 cannot in any case issue such a memorandum. It was further pointed out that it fettered the power of Courts for re-quisioning the Police force and in fixing dates in ordinary and emergency cases. 5. On behalf of the respondent, it was pointed out that the memorandum did not amount to a rule but that it was an administrative order issued by the Judge in charge within his power for the satisfactory working of the Nazaret of his Court with the staff available, as the said Nazaret had to make arrangements for the issue of all processes, writs and summonses of all the Courts including those of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner and as priority had to be given to the processes received from the Court of the Judicial Commissioner. It was also pointed out that the District Judge - Shri Chandra Prakash after his return had approved of the State memorandum and hence any defect has thereby been curel. 6. It has to be pointed out that Shri Radhamohon Singh as Subordinate Judge should not have issued the memorandum as "in charge District and Sessions Judge". It was also pointed out that the District Judge - Shri Chandra Prakash after his return had approved of the State memorandum and hence any defect has thereby been curel. 6. It has to be pointed out that Shri Radhamohon Singh as Subordinate Judge should not have issued the memorandum as "in charge District and Sessions Judge". Section 36 of the Manipur (Courts) Act, 1955, provides that in such cases, the Officer to whom the power has been delegated by the District Judge shall be designated only by the Office which he holds. Thus, if it is the Additional District Judge or the Subordinate Judge or the Munsiff to whom the power has been delegated he shall be designated as the Additional District Judge or the Subordinate Judge or the Munsiff as the case may be, in charge of the Headquarters. Thus, the Subordinate Judge Shri Radhamohon Singh was wrong in designating himself as "in charge District and Sessions Judge". This should be noted for future guidance. 7. But we are not concerned with Sec.36 or 37 of the Manipur (Courts) Act, 1955 in our present petition as the said Office Memorandum has been approved by the District Judge on his assuming charge and as this petition has been filed long after his approval. We may therefore treat the memorandum as issued by the District Judge. The question therefore is whether the District Judge has got the power to issue such a memorandum. 8. The Nazaret of the District Court is under the control of the District Judge and he has the power to issue such administrative orders as are necessary for the satisfactory working of the Nazaret with the available staff. None can question that authority of the District Judge. Under section 20 of the Manipur (Courts) Act, the District Court is the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in the District. Again, under Sec.27 of the said Act, the District Judge shall have administrative control over all the Civil Courts within the local limits of his jurisdiction subject, of course, to the general superintendence and control of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner. Thus, he can issue such administrative orders to the Civil Courts under him as are necessary for the satisfactory working of his Nazaret. 9. Thus, he can issue such administrative orders to the Civil Courts under him as are necessary for the satisfactory working of his Nazaret. 9. The two directions in the memorandum which are complained against are: (1) that notices and warrants should be sent to the Nazaret by the Courts at least 30 days ahead of the date fixed for hearing and that in the case of urgent notices and writs, prior information must be had from the Nazaret of the Court in writing before they are issued and (2) that in the case of writs for delivery of possession with Police help, the date for execution of the warrants should be fixed in consultation with the Police Department to be made in writing through the District Court. These two directions will mean that in the case of ordinary processes, the date for hearing has to be fixed by the Subordinate Courts at least 30 days after the issue of the process, that in urgent cases they have to fix the date of hearing only after getting prior information in writing from the Nazaret of the District Court and that in the case of execution of warrants with Police help, the Court can fix the date only in consultation with the Police Department to be made in writing through the District Court. 10. These directions are certainly not mere administrative directions. They certainly interfere with the discretion of the Courts in fixing the dates of hearing in cases before them. Under Sec.27, Sec.51, Sec.141 and Order 21, C.P.C., the Courts have to issue summonses and notices and attachment warrants and delivery warrants in matters before them and it is their discretion to fix dates for appearance of parties and for return of attachment warrants and delivery warrants. In many instances they have to act emergently and fix dates for the emergent return of processes and warrants depending on the urgency of the matter and not on the availability of process staff in the Nazaret. It is for the Nazaret to make arrangements for the service or execution, as otherwise, in many cases, justice will be denied. Courts should not be made to get clearance from the Nazir for fixing dates. 11. It is for the Nazaret to make arrangements for the service or execution, as otherwise, in many cases, justice will be denied. Courts should not be made to get clearance from the Nazir for fixing dates. 11. Order 21, Rule 24 prescribed the procedure in cases of execution of decrees and Rules 35, 36, 95 and 96 of order 21, for attachment, and delivery of immoveable properties etc. There will be cases where these orders have to be executed with Police help. In all these matters, the Courts are exercising their judicial functions and their discretion should not be interfered with in any manner by the District Court by issuing "administrative orders". In directing that the hearing date should be more than 30 days from the date of issue of the processes in ordinary cases, that in emergent cases, prior information should be obtained from the Nazir in writing regarding the availability of Process Servers and Bailiffs before dates are fixed and further that in getting Police help the date should be fixed in consultation with the Police Department to be made in writing through the District Court, serious interference with the discretion of the Courts will result. The work of the Court is made to depend on the will of the Nazir and even of the Police Department. This is meaningless. No Court should be reduced to that position by issue of such memorandum. 12. If however due to the increase in processes and shortage of staff, the District Judge finds that he has to interfere with the discretion of the Courts in fixing dates of hearing, the proper course for him is to bring the matter to the notice of this Court so that rules may be framed under Article 227 of the Constitution and S.10(2) of the Manipur (Courts) Act, 1955 for regulating the practice and procedure of the Subordinate Courts. The rules framed for the Subordinate Courts by this Court do not provide for the contingencies mentioned in the Office memorandum. If therefore the District Judge wishes that the existing rules should be amended in view of the increase in the work of the Nazaret and the paucity of the staff, he should apply to this Court for amendment of the rules. He cannot issue such administrative directions under any provision of law. 13. If therefore the District Judge wishes that the existing rules should be amended in view of the increase in the work of the Nazaret and the paucity of the staff, he should apply to this Court for amendment of the rules. He cannot issue such administrative directions under any provision of law. 13. The petition is, therefore allowed and the Office Memorandum issued by Shri Radhamohon Singh, Subordinate Judge No.1 on 24-9-1960 and approved by the District Judge on 9-11-1960 is set aside. Petition allowed.