Judgment :- 1. It came to the notice of this Court that the First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ernakulam had ordered the issue of summons to the District Collector, Ernakulam and the District Information Officer, Ernakulam to appear in a case in person on 10 31978 and thereupon action was taken suo motu by this Court to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the judge with a view to examine the legality and propriety of the said order. The records have been received and the remarks of the judge obtained. The order for the issue of summons was held in abeyance pending the final disposal of the matter by this Court. 2. The first Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ernakulam while trying Sessions Case No. 37 of 1976 seems to have felt disturbed in the discharge of his functions by reason of the 'deafening sound of motor bykes' and 'sounds of particular types of horns of motor cars' driving along the passage between the two buildings housing the Courts and the District Treasury The learned judge in what purports to be judicial proceedings dated 15101977 in the said Sessions case 37 of 1976 expressed the view that the acts of those driving the motor cars and motor bykes amount to offences under S.228 of the Indian Penal Code summarily punishable under S.345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Sessions Judge further observed therein: "But before proceeding in that direction, I am of the view, that the District Collector has to be apprised of this situation, for the purpose of appropriate action to stop such interruption. Therefore, a copy of this proceeding will be sent to the District Collector, Ernakulam, for the purpose of information and necessary action. I hope, that the matter will be set at right by the appropriate steps taken by the District Collector. If on any reason it does not materialise, this Court may take up the matter again in appropriate and particular cases, to stop such interferences and interruptions in the administration of justice. Since this is a matter, which is concerning the litigant public and others, who come to the premises of this Court, it is necessary, that this situation is given the necessary publicity; so that the public may know the same. Since this is a matter, which is concerning the litigant public and others, who come to the premises of this Court, it is necessary, that this situation is given the necessary publicity; so that the public may know the same. For this purpose, a copy of these proceedings may be sent to the District Information Officer, Ernakulam and Secretary, Bar Association, Ernakulam". Copies of the proceedings were sent to the District Collector and the District Information Officer. 3. Subsequently alleging that the work of the Court was interrupted by the sound of a motor byke driven in the premises on 16 21978 action was taken by the court by calling upon the person concerned to show cause why he should not be punished for an offence under S.228 IPC. He was asked by the court on his appearance before it, whether the District Collector had taken any action on the proceedings of the court dated 15101977 and whether the District Information Officer had published the proceedings. The accused expressed his ignorance of the proceedings dated 15101977 and also slid he was not aware of any steps taken by the Collector or the District Information Officer. Equipped with this background the Additional Sessions judge directed the issue of summons to the District Collector and District Information Officer, apparently with the object of examining them as witnesses to find out whether they had taken action to give due publicity to the proceedings of the judge. 4. Plainly, it is difficult to appreciate the modus operandi adopted by the Additional Sessions Judge. There was no scope for issue of any judicial proceedings by way of direction to the District Collector or the District Information Officer What ought to have been properly done, if the judge felt that was necessary was to bring the matter to the notice of the District Collector and the District Information Officer administratively through the District Judge, Ernakulam who would have contacted the District Collector or would have brought the matter to the notice of the High Court for appropriate action. Executive action disguised in judicial robes will continue to be mere executive action. Cloaking it as a judicial proceeding in a pending case will not operate to change its character. Executive action disguised in judicial robes will continue to be mere executive action. Cloaking it as a judicial proceeding in a pending case will not operate to change its character. What ought appropriately to have been the subject of an administrative request to the District Collector cannot be given the sanctity of a judicial command merely by disguising it as proceedings in a pending case. The First Additional Sessions Judge was not resorting to exercise of any power conferred by law which statutorily obliged the District Collector or District Information Officer to act as directed in the proceedings. If it was in the nature of a request it ought to have been so made plainly and should have been routed in the proper manner If information was required as to the action taken pursuant to the request that too must have been obtained by an administrative communication and not by summoning the District Collector or District Information Officer as witnesses. In the circumstances the issue of summons to the District Collector and the District Information Officer is unwarranted and uncalled for. The direction made by the First Additional Sessions Judge for that purpose will stand vacated. 5. Sri. M. B. Kurup, the Director of Prosecutions, appeared for the District Collector at the hearing Though the learned Director of Prosecutions submitted that if the court so desires he would have no objection to place before this court some material which may perhaps furnish the background of the action taken by the first Additional District Judge, so as to enable this court to examine whether there were extraneous reasons which led to the direction summoning the District Collector, I do not think it is necessary to go into that question, for, even without it, I think the direction needs to be vacated 6. The judiciary is clothed with vast powers to see to the effective functioning of the courts. This very fact calls for exercise of judicial restraint. That is so not only in the expression of views by the court, but also in the action it takes. Judicial restraint is a virtue. It is a great virtue It is no doubt imperative that judiciary should keep itself independent of the executive at all levels, but that is not to be understood as meaning that it should seek avenues of confrontation. Judicial restraint is a virtue. It is a great virtue It is no doubt imperative that judiciary should keep itself independent of the executive at all levels, but that is not to be understood as meaning that it should seek avenues of confrontation. Avoidable and unnecessary irritants may do good to none while at the same time it may project a distorted picture of the mutual relations between the executive and the judiciary. This is well worth remembering.