RAVI S. DHAVAN, J. This writ petition has been filed by the Adhiwakta Parishad and another. The relief sought in the petition is that a mandamus he issued to the Union of India to review the strength of judges at the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in consultation with the Chief Justice of India and refix the strength of judges of this High Court commensurate with the need to fulfil the State obligation of providing speedy justice. The theme of the writ petition is that it there were more judges, regard being had to the docket explosion at the Allahabad High Court, then, the increased strength of judges will see finality of cases and reduce the arrears. The contention of the petitioners in the case is that one simple solution to all this problem of arrears would be to appoint more judges. The petitioner dwells on other ill, which afflict the Court, but primarily pleads that if more judges, were appointed, then the additional strength will effectively be in a position to move matters and enter decisions on more cases. 2. The Government of India had been issued notice on this petition on 2 February, 1994, almost two and a half years ago to file a counter-affidavit, but, as of date, no counter-affidavit has been filed. Regard being had to the nature of controversy in the writ petition, it would not be proper that this matter be adjourned further to await the affidavit of the Union of India. 3. Basically on what the petitioners contend, there is no issue that if there were more judges it would make a difference to the pending cases at the Allahabad High Court. But, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R. P. Goyal, concedes that this factor alone may not move matter in clearing the arrears or the dockets which are filed in Court and await hearing. 4. If the Court were certain that an increased strength of the High Court in proportion to either the population or the litigation would resolve the matter to clear the arrears, then, a mandamus the like of which has been sought by the petitioner can be issued is But, increased strength of judges is not the solitary criteria which may be responsible for clearing the arrears at the Allahabad High Court. Truly, it is accepted and cannot be denied that the issues raised in this writ petition relate to the Allahabad High Court us a Court of Record under the Constitution of India. The contention of the petitioners in the writ petition is that (a) pending arrears bog the judicial system in this High Court; (b) a large number of Benches are engaged in receiving and considering fresh matters or cases for admission leaving no capacity or time to deal with other subjects in which litigation is pending like Second Appeals, Sales Tax Revisions, Criminal Appeals, First Appeals, First Appeal From Orders, Civil Revisions, Income-tax References, Miscellaneous Criminal Cases, Criminal Revisions besides Writ Petitions (c) backlog of every year piles up like a spiral and the cumulative arrears never clear; (d) while the High Court is engaged in doing fresh work only, the cases listed for hearing do not surface for years and thousands of expedite applications are awaiting consideration for being taken up and thousands of expedite cases have yet to appear on the list. 5. The Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and has hesitation in issuing a mandamus which may turn out to be a futile writ for the simple reason that a solitary factor may not be the solution to clear the arrears of the High Court and to keep this institution working in an ideal state so that the input of cases and the output of it, i. e. , between the filing and the decision, there is no inordinate delay. 6. It is the considered opinion of this Court that no amount of judges can clear the arrears of pending cases and yet half the strength may be sufficient to effectively see things moving. May be the entire arrears may not be wiped out by one stroke. The Court has already expressed its views in an order which it gave in the matter of Gangotri Builders v. State of U. P. (1996) 27 All LR 131 and is reiterating some passages from it: "4. The entire Court system today has concentrated its efforts on admission cases and seemingly forgotten the need for hearing. The time has come for the Court as a whole to sit down and discuss what has gone wrong with the management of the flow of cases over the years, as this cannot go on indefinitely. The entire Court system today has concentrated its efforts on admission cases and seemingly forgotten the need for hearing. The time has come for the Court as a whole to sit down and discuss what has gone wrong with the management of the flow of cases over the years, as this cannot go on indefinitely. Of todays cause list which the Court has perused, it appears that Court after Court is weighed own by listed admission cases, even excluding the ones which come afresh everyday. The question has to be answered; what has happened to normal hearing of cases? Today the High Court in the transaction of its judicial business is pressed under the weight of admission why? 5. An admission is leave granted by a Superior Court of Record that a writ petition is certified fit for the issue of a prerogative writ. Thereafter the High Court accepts the case for hearing. Todays phenomenon of writ cases ready for hearing, but out of sight, and writ pending admission without a certificate of leave tube heard is not of todays making. It has happened over the years. Fewer than 10,000 writ petitions were filed in a year two decades ago; today the number has crossed the 25,000 mark, and the year is only half over. How will the Judicature manage to decide, and not merely dispose of the perhaps 50,000 writ petitions which will be filed? 6. There are no short cuts of a qualitative public justice delivery system. In a democracy it is imperative that the Court determine issues and causes and arrive at solutions, based on the procedure established by law. A system which will ignore cases languishing for hearing, or the Courts not having an occasion for hearing or being prevented from hearing cases, is serious cause for concern. 7. This is not the forum for dissecting the causes of this impasse. Every institution must subject itself to introspective analysis if it is to find a remedy by understanding the causes. The Allahabad High Court is no exception. 8. But, this will have to be a collective effort. Otherwise, the Court will continue to take up matters to hear either in fear or favour. Thousands of casts and causes with litigants on either side will remain waiting for their turn to be heard. They will question the Court on how others step over them. 8. But, this will have to be a collective effort. Otherwise, the Court will continue to take up matters to hear either in fear or favour. Thousands of casts and causes with litigants on either side will remain waiting for their turn to be heard. They will question the Court on how others step over them. It is not that there are no matters of life, nature and liberty, which need urgent attention. But hearing any case should be the ordinary situation not an exception. 9. This is also not a matter which should be left to be discussed only in corridors, Bar Association halls, Chambers or even in dialogues in Court rooms. It is not the exclusive concern of the Bench or the Bar or individuals between them, Improvement will have to be a collective effort by all within the Judicature. It will have to be a collective effort to strive towards excellence in the functioning of this public institution imparting public justice this is a Constitutional obligation. 10. The lawyers, Judges and the administrative staff of the Court as well will have to sit together to agree that it is routine to hear hearing cases. The admission of them to certify causes fit for being heard and away them for hearing is, however, the Courts discretion. . . . . . . . . . . . . " 11. In these three cases different Courts permitted exchange of pleadings, different Courts granted ad interim orders and the pleadings in all of them are not complete. Counsel submits that the issues on the merits itself are serious. If respondent who seeks an early hearing were to apply in accordance with the procedure in the Rules of Court, with a request to the Honble the Chief Justice that these cases be heard at an early date, this power, after admission, is reserved to the Honble the Chief Justice. What will move the system will be a participatory exercise within the judicature as a system of Court management to be looked into afresh. What will move the matters is an understanding between all those who work within the judicature system it does not exclude members of the Bar, It is clear that there is no understanding between the three elements which make the Courts the Judges, the Bar and the staff of the Court. What will move the matters is an understanding between all those who work within the judicature system it does not exclude members of the Bar, It is clear that there is no understanding between the three elements which make the Courts the Judges, the Bar and the staff of the Court. Putting the responsibility on either one of the factors, as the petitioners may suggest, may be a misplaced solution. All the three elements come with their short comings, but there are more factors which will clam the arrears of cases. Merely increasing the strength of judges will not help in clearing the buried and pending dockets. A dedicated, deliberated and well considered dialogue between all who man the judicature may. Some of the issues are (1) an approach to find new methods of grievance procedures to ensure that before a litigation is put into Court parties to a dispute make efforts to resolve it. (2) by quantum the largest of litigations in this High Court, or any other, relate to reliefs against the State, i. e. , the State of U. P. the Union of India and Government controlled institutions. Half the causes are on allegations of official arbitrariness. This needs a State response to the valid grievances of the citizen. (3) It is not that all litigations are genuine. A large, number are tailored for the Court. A litigant will be tempted to take a chance in the gamble of litigation as nothing succeeds like success of succeeding. Should the legal profession encourage this? The issue of prerogative writs itself, is the largest litigation which this Court has. Every writ which is issued is against either the State or a public authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner stressed that arbitrary State action invites litigation in the shape of a writ petition. The Court is not making any comment on this aspect, but the other side of the coin is that a responsive bureaucracy will ensure that public justice is just meeted out first by the bureaucracy itself not in a litigation by a writ petition putting pressure on the strength of the judges and the benches as constituted to deal with other matters, the like of which the petitioners have mentioned in the writ petition. The discussion above is on generalities. The discussion above is on generalities. Specific to this High Court in the clerical docket management system one or two -aspects cannot escape notice. " The inventory system of the High Court which stores pending litigation is outmoded. It is not in keeping with present conditions. For future, the management of cases into Court cannot continue to be classified in groups a, b find c as the pattern of litigation itself has become complex as the laws, today, cater to a complex society and are prodigious in numbers. Immediately after the year of the Republic, the new High Court Rules, provided for accepting the records of writ petitions. These cases were simply classified and stored in groups a b and c. This very writ petition, on which this order is being written, has been simply classified- as c. All these years have been lost in trying to reclassify the storage system, notwithstanding that a meticulous category classification system was formulated but gathers dust. The Court cannot locate the cases within its bowels and is not prepared to reorient its inventory under a subject analysed category classification list. There is no reason why a docket when it is filed in Court is avoided for classification under the classification code so that cases are polarised into a specific subject category and retrieval becomes easier, than it is at present. It is not that the High Court had not undertaken this exercise. It did. But a colonial approach and the system continuing to be structured under it, manages a public justice system with a feudal outlook. Those who manage the system themselves resist any change, however effective it might be, in their territory. 7. What will move and clear the arrears of dockets is a modern Court management system. New tools are available, if only the Court would adopt them. This will call for a discussion by all concerned to chalk out a crash programme on a war footing to ensure that the public justice system delivers its goods effectively and speedily without the pitfalls which prevent good management. Thus, if the system is to work it will need very exacting assistance from all those who are involved in it, whether it is the State, the judges, the lawyers or the Court staff. One factor alone will not he able to push the pending arrears away. Thus, if the system is to work it will need very exacting assistance from all those who are involved in it, whether it is the State, the judges, the lawyers or the Court staff. One factor alone will not he able to push the pending arrears away. The business of management of the judicature need a fresh and modern approach. The Allahabad High Court cannot be an exception. 8. With these observations, the Court consigns this writ petition to the record as dismissed, as the mandamus sought as a solitary relief is neither a factor on its own nor a direction which can be given. Petition dismissed. .