ORDER Heard the parties. This case has been brought to this Court by way of public interest litigation for giving a direction to the learned Chief Justice of this Court to constitute the Benches in such a manner so that election petitions filed before this Court under the Representation of peoples Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') are disposed of within a period of six months from the date of their filing as required under section 86(7) of the Act, which reads thus: "Every election petition shall be tied as expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be made to conclude the trial within six months from the date on which the election petition is presented to the High Court for trial" Petitioner no. 1 Umadhar Prasad Singh is petitioner in Election petition no. 19/90 pending before this Court whereas petitioner no. 2 is Secretary of Bihar State Committee of Communist Organisation of India (Marxist-Lennist) (Central Committee). 2. From the whole tenor of the writ application, it appears that the present application has been filed in pith and substance for granting relief to the petitioner no. 1 in the garb of public interest litigation. In various paragraphs, it has been mentioned that the election petition filed by the petitioner no. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner') has not yet been disposed of even after expiry of 18 months. From paragraph 13, it appears to us that the petitioner was so negligent in not making the election petition ready earlier, inasmuch as, if notices were not served, the petitioner could have taken steps for substituted services but no attempt was made by the petitioner for substituted service. In paragraph 15, a bald statement has been made that the learned Judges bearing election petitions do not get time for hearing the election petitions, even though witnesses are present for their examination. It has nowhere been stated that the petitioner brought his witnesses for their examination or the respondents in the election petition brought the witnesses on the date fixed and the witnesses had to return back without being examined for paucity of time as the learned Judge was busy in hearing other matters. In Our view, grievance of the petitioner is individual one which cannot be redressed by entertaining a public interest litigation. 3. That apart, in our view, the petitioners have no case on merit. In Our view, grievance of the petitioner is individual one which cannot be redressed by entertaining a public interest litigation. 3. That apart, in our view, the petitioners have no case on merit. Pendency of cases is a world wide phenomenon for which Bench and Bar both were responsible. There is a vicious circle. One of the reasons may be that the Government is not filling up the vacancies in the High Courts. Another reason seems to be growing tendency in the executive to pass arbitrary orders, reasons for which are manifold which need not be enumerated here. Moreover, number of the cases is galloping fast especially frivolous litigations and the Judges have no option but to some time heal long arguments in such cases. Nobody can be stopped advancing any sort of argument he likes and when such a member of the Bar is tried to. be stopped, then he makes an attempt to create scene in the Court room and in handling the same tactfully, some time is wasted so that decorum of Court may not be spoiled. Further, election petition alone is not such a matter which should be given preference, writ application in which question of enforcement of fundamental right is involved and which is an extraordinary remedy provided under the Constitution has to be heard first. Constitution being Supreme, Courts are obliged to give preference to cases which are for enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens and the cases for enforcement of the provisions of the other statutory provisions like section 86 (7) of the Act, stand at a lower footing. Bail matters and habeas corpus petitions in which liberty of the citizens is involved are required to be heard immediately. Apart from that, in many civil and criminal cases, immediate interim orders are necessary to be obtained and the same are required to be heard without any delay. Criminal appeals, where people are in Jail for years together, have to be heard. Even then while doing such urgent matters, as we know, on many occasions the learned Judges give priority to the election petition specially when witnesses are present for examination. The petitioner could not produce any document to show that the learned Judge concerned has refused to hear his election petition though witnesses were present, on ground that the Court had no time to hear the same. The petitioner could not produce any document to show that the learned Judge concerned has refused to hear his election petition though witnesses were present, on ground that the Court had no time to hear the same. Moreover, the very language of section 86 (7) of the Act, shows that the same cannot be said to be mandatory, but directory as it simply says that an "endeavour" shall be made to dispose of the election petitions within six months from the date of its filing. 4. In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not think it is possible to grant any relief to the petitioners. In our view, remedy of the petitioners is to move the learned Chief Justice or the concerned learned Judge by filing a petition for disposal of the Cases expeditiously. 5. In the result, the writ application fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, before parting with the order, we may express our deep concern to the fact that if the election petitions are actually piling up and are pending since such a long time, the learned Chief Justice, who is so much concerned with these matters as well, will be well advised to see, that the learned Judges who have been assigned to decide election petitions, having expertise in election law and well versed with the procedure of original trial, should not be over-burdened with other cases, so that ejection petitions can be disposed of expeditiously. 6. This application is thus disposed of. 7. Let this order be brought to the notice of the learned Chief Justice. Application disposed of.