JUDGMENT : W.P. (C) No. 437 of 2000 1. Mr. Gopal Subramanium, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner prays that he may be permitted to delete prayer (c) in the writ petition. His oral request is allowed and the said prayer is ordered to be deleted. 2. Issue notice returnable after four weeks. 3. On behalf of the Union of India, the learned Solicitor General states that the Union of India is facing serious administrative problem as a result of the bifurcation of the National Capital Territory of Delhi in nine Civil Districts. He states that the problems are also arising as far as the litigating public is concerned, especially in relation to the territorial jurisdiction. He submits that some time be given to the Central Government to look into the problem in greater detail and then submit a Report to this Court for its consideration. 4. The petitioner and others will fully cooperate with the Government in seeing that whatever steps are taken with a view to give relief to the litigating public, no obstacles will be put in place. The learned Solicitor General suggests that the operation of the Notification No. F.6/10/2000 Judi. 694-704 dated 28th June, 2000 be stayed for the time being but those officers who have been posted at different places should not be required, as a consequence of the stay, to revert back to their original postings. The question with regard to the postings of the Judicial Officers should be left to the High Court. 5. In view of the above, we suspend the operation of the aforesaid Notification dated 28th June, 2000. The effect of this would be that till further orders, Delhi would continue to be regarded as a single District and the High Court will be at liberty to post Judicial Officers in those Court Rooms wherever they are available whether at Karkardooma Courts, or Patiala House Courts or Tis Hazari Courts. It should be the effort to see that no Court Room remains vacant. How the postings are to be done is for the High Court to decide. If any one has been appointed as a District Judge as a consequence of the said Notification dated 28th June, 2000, he should be assigned work as the Additional District Judge. 6. It should be the effort to see that no Court Room remains vacant. How the postings are to be done is for the High Court to decide. If any one has been appointed as a District Judge as a consequence of the said Notification dated 28th June, 2000, he should be assigned work as the Additional District Judge. 6. In submitting the Report, the Union of India will also indicate as to what should be the desired ideal strength of the subordinate judiciary in Delhi and what steps can be taken to achieve this. 7. It will be appropriate that this notice is returnable before a Bench of three Judges. W.P. (C) No. 451 of 2000 8. Issue notice returnable after four weeks. 9. Tag along with W.P. (C) No. 437 of 2000.