Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 419 (GAU)

Shibani Roy v. Union of India

2005-05-31

A.B.PAL, B.K.ROY, R.B.MISRA

body2005
JUDGMENT B.K. Roy, J. 1. The Petitioner, a practicing Advocate of the Agartala Bench of the Gauhati High Court, has knocked the door of this Constitutional Court asserting that this writ petition is for the benefit of people of Tripura praying for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus directing Respondent No. 1 to take immediate steps for establishing a separate High Court for the State of Tripura, by amending the provisions, particularly Part-IV of the North Eastern Areas (Re- Organization ) Act, 1971 (hereafter referred to as the Act). 2. The aforementioned prayers are founded on following facts: 2.1. Tripura was a Princely State. It merged with India by virtue of an instrument of merger dated October 15, 1949. It became a Part-C State, then Union Territory having a Court of Judicial Commissioner, and finally a full fledged State pursuant to the Act. 2.2. With effect from January 21, 1972 vide Part-IV of the Act, a common High Court named Gauhati High Court for five North Eastern States and two Union Territories was established and the Court of Judicial Commissioner stood abolished. 2.3. The common High Court held Circuit Courts at Agartala. 2.4. Because the people of Tripura were clamouring for a separate High Court, for them a Permanent Bench was established at Agartala and under a Presidential order it was contemplated that there shall be not less than three Judges for this Permanent Bench. 2.5. Even after establishment of the Permanent Bench at Agartala it was found that it cannot cater the needs of the litigants. Many cases remained pending for 12/15 years resulting in virtual denial of justice. The Permanent Bench does not have three judges at a time, rather only two judges were holding Courts. At times only one judge was posted at Agartala. The number of pending cases in the Agartala Bench as on May 31, 2000 justifies a separate High Court for Tripura. At present the number of main cases is 5254. If to this figure the number of misc. cases are added then the number will exceed 6000. From 1.1.2000 to 31.5.2000, during which 1276 cases were filed, only 953 cases were disposed of. To this figure very old cases are also to be added. Litigants have their sufferings for a long time on account of non disposal of their cases, which amounts to gross denial of justice. cases are added then the number will exceed 6000. From 1.1.2000 to 31.5.2000, during which 1276 cases were filed, only 953 cases were disposed of. To this figure very old cases are also to be added. Litigants have their sufferings for a long time on account of non disposal of their cases, which amounts to gross denial of justice. There are cases in which convicts are lingering in jail whose criminal appeals have not been disposed of. These difficulties have not been realized by the political people in the helm of affairs in Delhi. 2.6. For the year 1997-98 a sum of Rs.87,32,000 was the charged budget for the Agartala Bench. Every year, the State of Tripura has to pay Rs.72 lakhs as its contribution towards the common High Court. This apart, a huge amount are being spent for the purpose of T.A./D.A etc. of the Judges coming from Gauhati and going back to Gauhati and/or to other Benches. Extra fuel and protocal expenditure stands at least Rs.1 lakh. A chart (Annexure-C) is being appended showing statement of expenditure in this regard and the likely expenditure to be incurred in case a separate High Court for Tripura is established. This chart shows saving of Rs.59 lakhs every year. 2.7. The Tripura Legislative Assembly passed a resolution requesting the Central Government to take steps for establishment of a separate High Court but no heed was paid. 2.8. The High Court Bar Association, Agartala adopted a resolution (Copy appended as Annexure-D) requesting the Central Government for establishing a separate high Court for Tripura along with a draft Bill amending the Act was also sent (Copy appended as Annexure-E) but without any result. 2.9. The Chief Minister of Tripura also requested Central Government by his letter (Copy appended as Annexure-H) to take steps in this regard. This letter was also addressed to the Prime Minister (Copy appended as Annexure-F) and the Chief Justice of India (Copy appended as Annexure-G). The Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs intimated that the number of cases pending in Agartala Bench does not justify establishment of a separate High Court for Tripura. 2.10. Recently, the present Union Minister for Law, Justice and Company Affairs informed the Rajya Sabha that the number of cases pending in the Agartala Bench does not justify the establishment of separate High Court. 2.11. 2.10. Recently, the present Union Minister for Law, Justice and Company Affairs informed the Rajya Sabha that the number of cases pending in the Agartala Bench does not justify the establishment of separate High Court. 2.11. A practicing senior lawyer wrote letter dated 16.5.2000 (copy appended as Annexure-J) to the Union Minister stating that the information given by him to the Rajya Sabha is not correct, and that even though there are only about 50 and odd cases pending in the State of Sikkim, it has separate High Court, and there is no reason why Tripura should be deprived of a separate High Court, particularly when the State exchequer would not suffer in any manner and the cases would be disposed of expeditiously and that political consideration should not stand in deciding whether a State should have a separate High Court or not. 2.12. Members of the Staff of Agartala Bench also suffer considerably because their service matters are regulated by the Registry of the Principal seat and their matters are being kept pending for a long period resulting in unusual hardship to them. 2.13. The existing Buildings would be sufficient for accommodating the Office and Courts of the High Court. Presently there are three Court rooms. There would be no difficulty to accommodate two more Courts due to existing infrastructure. Several Bunagalows are available, including a big common Bungalow for use of Judges. If a separate High Court is established with five judges, there will be no difficulty to accommodate them. 2.14. There is no reason to deny separate High Court for Tripura. 3. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, in their Counter Affidavit assert, inter alia, to this effect: 3.1. Prior to the establishment of the Permanent Bench at Agartala a Circuit Bench was in existence and Benches, single or division, were constituted as and when considered necessary by the Chief Justice. The Presidential Order also provided that the Chief Justice may, in his discretion, order that any case or class of cases arising in the State of Tripura shall be heard at Gauhati. Thus, the establishment of permanent Bench can cater the need of the litigants. 3.2. In 1987 judges strength of the Gauhati High Court was fixed at 17 permanent judges and 2 additional judges, out of which 2 permanent judges and 1 additional judge was fixed for the Permanent Bench at Agartala. Thus, the establishment of permanent Bench can cater the need of the litigants. 3.2. In 1987 judges strength of the Gauhati High Court was fixed at 17 permanent judges and 2 additional judges, out of which 2 permanent judges and 1 additional judge was fixed for the Permanent Bench at Agartala. In view of 1993 decision of the Apex Court a periodical review of the optimum strength of judges of every High Court is being considered necessary with reference to the felt need for disposal of cases taking into account the backlog and expected future filing. According to the Resolution adopted on December, 4, 1993 in the Conference of the Chief Ministers and Chief Justices of the High Courts, the Government of India is to undertake periodical review of the strength of the judges in each High Court, for efficiently dealing with arrears of pending cases in consultation with the constitutional functionaries of the States concerned and the Chief Justice of India. This exercise is undertaken once in every three years. According to the guidelines formulated in 1994, on the recommendation of the then Chief Justice of India, the required strength of judges in the High Court was determined on average institution of main cases during the last 5 years and average rate of disposal of main cases per judge per year in that High Court or the national average, whichever is higher. The required strength of the additional judge is also determined by taking in account pendency over 2 years and the same average rate of disposal and that if the average rate of disposal is equal to or more than the national average then increase in judges strength, if called for, is considered, otherwise the Chief Justice is required to take steps for improvement in the rate of disposal of cases. Keeping that policy decision the strength of judges of the High Courts was reviewed in 1995. The required strength of the Gauhati High Court was found to be 8 permanent judges and 3 additional judges for disposal of pending main cases for 3 years and thus it was found that the approved strength of the High Court was having more than the required strength. The required strength of the Gauhati High Court was found to be 8 permanent judges and 3 additional judges for disposal of pending main cases for 3 years and thus it was found that the approved strength of the High Court was having more than the required strength. In 1999 also the judges strength was reviewed during which it was found that the average rate of disposal of main cases per judge per year was 872 only as against the national average of 1363 and was thus found that the required strength of the Gauhati High Court was 10 permanent judges for disposal of annual institution of main cases and 2 additional judges for disposal of pending main cases in 3 years. In the wake of demand for a separate High Court for Tripura an exercise was taken to asses the work load of the Permanent Bench at Agartala and it was found that an average number of 1245 mains cases were instituted in the Agartala Bench during 1993-1997, whereas the national average rate of disposal of main cases per judge per year during that year was 1363 and thus the required strength of permanent judge for the Agartala Bench was only one. On 31.12.1997 only 2780 main cases were found to be pending, which could be disposed of by one judge in 2 years or by 2 judges in one year. Thus, the work load did not required more than 2-3 judges at the Agartala Bench. According to the information received from the Registry only 3532 main cases and 714 misc. cases were found to be pending at the Agartala Bench as on 1.9.2000, out of which only 9 mains cases were reported to be pending for more than 10 years as on 1.9.2000. Next review of the judges strength would be undertaken in 2002. 3.3. According to Section 33 of the Act read with Section 18(2) of the State of Arunachal Pradesh Act, 1986, the expenditure in respect of salaries and allowances of the judges of the common High Court shall be allocated amongst the States of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland and Tripura in such proportionate as the President may by order amend. The judges of Gauhati High Court (Allocation of Salaries and Allowances) Amendment Order, 1985 provided the manner in which the expenditure of the High Court is to be shared by the States and the formula devised for the purpose is intended to ensure equitable distribution of liabilities based on the workload from the States and the number of judges who served the States. In case this formula appears to any State Government to be against its interest, it can always make a representation in this regard. 3.4. The existing arrangement of the common High Court is satisfactory and its fragmentation into small High Court consisting of one to three judges would not be in the interest of administration of justice for the present. The Benches are as good as High Court except that they have unified command at Guwahati. The present system has twin advantages of centralization and decentralization at the same time. This would in course of time evolve as a cohesive unit to serve best interest of the North Eastern Region and system would also thus contribute to the administration of justice in the whole country. It is not the political consideration but the consideration of interest of administration of justice which has weighed in favour of continuance of the present judicial system in the North Eastern region. 3.5. It would be unfair to draw a parallel between Sikkim and Tripura. 3.6. It is felt that the remedy of the malaise lies in the State Government or the Registry of the High Court Bench at Agartala. 3.7. The problem of pendency of cases is universal and solution does not lie in creation of separate High Court but in increasing the rate of disposal of cases upto the national average and if necessary to provide more judges. Had the separate High Court been the answer then there could not have been pendency in the separate High Court for the State of Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Gujrat, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Bihar and Rajasthan. The remedy lies in strengthening the existing system of having a common High Court under Article 231 of the Constitution of India. The intention is not to deny separate High Court to the State of Tripura but to continue for the present with the system which has evolved over a number of years and appears to be genuine perfection. 3.8. The remedy lies in strengthening the existing system of having a common High Court under Article 231 of the Constitution of India. The intention is not to deny separate High Court to the State of Tripura but to continue for the present with the system which has evolved over a number of years and appears to be genuine perfection. 3.8. Thus, the writ petition be dismissed. 4. The State of Tripura (Respondent No. 4) in its counter asserts inter alia to this effect: 4.1. It is in favour of establishment of a separate High Court which has been a long pending demand from all corners. During the royal regime also it had its own High Court at Agartala. The inhabitants of this hilly State did get easily and quickly justice with their limited resources. For seeking justice they were not required to go outside the State. After merger of the Princely State the Union Territory of Tripura had a permanent Court of Judicial Commissioner, which was equivalent in status of the High Court, which was enjoyed by the people of Tripura till attainment of Statehood pursuant to the Act. 4.2. The plight of the poor people of Tripura and the State seeking justice by the High Court began right from 21.1.1972 as they had to go to Gauhati for instituting/preferring cases/appeals etc. in the absence of regular sitting of Circuit Bench at Agartala. The system of holding Circuit Court at Agartala proved to be failure. The long felt necessity and persistent demands for disinterrupted availability of High Court at Agartala had reluctantly being conceded to by the Central Government resulting establishment of permanent Bench. 4.3. The functioning of the permanent Bench due to non availability of required number of judges sitting at Agartala in terms of the Presidential order also failed to satisfy the aspiration of the people of Tripura with regard to rate of disposal of cases. On some working days the Permanent Bench remains defunct due to non-availability of judges. There were about 3500 pending cases at Agartala of which some are as old as 1983. 4.4. There is already completed infrastructure of 3 residential accommodation for judges, vehicle, staff etc. The establishment of separate High Court would save Rs.50 lakhs per year from the public exchequar each year. If a separate High Court is established substantial part of budgetary establishment would be reduced. 4.5. 4.4. There is already completed infrastructure of 3 residential accommodation for judges, vehicle, staff etc. The establishment of separate High Court would save Rs.50 lakhs per year from the public exchequar each year. If a separate High Court is established substantial part of budgetary establishment would be reduced. 4.5. The Central Government took a decision to set up a separate High Court for each of the North Eastern State. It was reiterated in its counter-affidavit in Civil Rule No. 25 8 of 1995 (Copy is appended herewith as Annexure-R-1). The Central Government has not come with any justifiable reason for withholding its earlier decision. 4.6. The State of Sikkim has its own High Court having less than 100 cases. 4.7. The number of pending cases also demand for establishment of separate High Court. By road it takes 24 hours to reach Guwahati from Agartala and air travel to Guwahati is expensive. 4.8. The permanent Bench, which was established with high aspiration, did not yield any tangible result. The experience of common High Court has not worked very well for the legal professionals at large and litigant public. This burning problem was raised in the legislative house which unanimously resolved for establishment of a separate High Court. The demand was also made to the Union of India which has denied. 4.9. In 2003-2004 the Government of Tripura spent Rs.2.23 crores as recurring expenditure to run the Permanent Bench at Agartala. When Judges move out to hold Court they are accompanied with Private Secretaries, Cook, Orderly, Spouse and Children. Air travel being the only mode of journey, the expenditure on this account is very high. An estimate has been shown prepared which shows that expenditure for a separate High Court would minimize the expenditure of running the Permanent Bench at Agartala from its poor exchequer. 4.10. The State Government has no difficulty in accepting the contentions of the Union Law Minister regarding justification, if the same is applicable to all other State. 4.11. The State Government is very keen for establishing a separate High Court for which it has already set up sufficient space and buildings with an expectation that it will be established soon. 5. The Petitioner in her affidavit-in-opposition to the Counter of Respondent Nos. 1-3 has stated to this effect: 5.1. 4.11. The State Government is very keen for establishing a separate High Court for which it has already set up sufficient space and buildings with an expectation that it will be established soon. 5. The Petitioner in her affidavit-in-opposition to the Counter of Respondent Nos. 1-3 has stated to this effect: 5.1. Way back in 1987 it was decided by the Central Government to have separate a High Court for all the North Eastern States at their capital. There cannot be any departure from the aforesaid decision as there has been no change since 1987 in the circumstances prevailing in the State. On 25.3.1987 the then Union Minister of Law and Justice sent D.O. letter to the Governors of North Eastern States (copy is appended hereto as Annexure-K) intimating the said decision. 5.2. There was hardly any occasion when three judges sat at a time at Agartala. Sometimes the work of Agartala Bench had discontinued because of absence of even a Single Judge, what to speak of three judges. For several weeks in the months of November and December, 2000 there was no judge at Agartala Bench. The approved strength of the judges of the Gauhati High Court is grossly inadequate for which the Central Government is responsible. In the first week of January, 2001 there was only one judge for 2 days and for the remaining days there was no judge. In the 2nd week of January, 2001 there were 2 judges and in the 3rd week of December, 2001 there was only one judge. Therefore, even the permanent Bench has not been provided with adequate number of judges. 5.3. There appears to be contradiction in the stand taken in paragraph 8 and paragraph 9 inasmuch as in paragraph 8 it has been stated that small High Court consisting of one to three judges would not be in the interest of administration of justice in the country whereas in paragraph 9 a stand has been taken that it would be unfair to draw a parallel between the High Court for Sikkim and the need for separate High Court for all the States in the North Eastern Region in general and for Tripura in particular. If a separate High Court with small number of cases for Sikkim is justifiable, what prevents to have taken similar view in respect of other States in the North Eastern Region of the country. If a separate High Court with small number of cases for Sikkim is justifiable, what prevents to have taken similar view in respect of other States in the North Eastern Region of the country. The objection raised by the Union of India is discriminatory, unreasonable and unfair and thereby is in teeth of provision of Article 14 of the Constitution. 6. Mr. B. Das, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, contended as follows: The facts averred by the Petitioner, which stands amply supported by the Tripura Government, speak for themselves. The plight of the litigants, the legal professionals and the State Government, which are apparent and undisputed by the Union, justifies creation of a separate High Court for the State of Tripura. A decision was already taken by the Government of India for establishment of a separate High Court, which is not allowed to be given a concrete shape by the bureaucracy. Therefore, it is high time for this Court to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the Union of India through Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to follow its own decision and take steps for establishing a separate High Court for Tripura by amending the appropriate provisions of the Act by which the Gauhati High Court was established as a common High Court for all 7 States. Non-establishment of a separate High Court is detrimental to the poor public exchequer of the State of Tripura, as indicated in the State's Counter. This is also an apparent discrimination adopted by the Government of India as on the other hand, according to the establishment of an independent High Court in a small State fulfils the demand of the litigants for quick disposal of cases whereas for Tripura it is for continuance of the Permanent Bench, which has proved futile in quick disposal of cases. He also contended that the theory of separation of powers between the Executive, Legislative and Judiciary is a myth or miraid The Executive is the leader of the House (i.e. Parliament) and a writ of mandamus can be issued to the executive for establishment of an independent High Court for Tripura as envisaged under Article 214 of the Constitution of India. He referred to the decisions of the Apex Court in Union of India v. Charanjit S. Gill AIR 2000 SC 3425 , (Paragraph 9 and 10); the State of Bihar v. Subhas Singh AIR 1997 SCW 1507 , and Minerva Mills Limited v. Union of India AIR 1980 SC 1789 . 7. Mr. U.B. Saha, the learned Sr. Government Advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 4 highlighted the plight of the litigants and the Government of Tripura, but conceded and in our view correctly, that no writ of mandamus can be issued to the Parliament for amending the provisions of the Act for establishment of an independent High Court for Tripura and submitted that the cry of his Government has been right from the very beginning to have an exclusive High Court for the State of Tripura. He expressed surprise in regard to the stand taken by the Union in its Counter which, according to him is unfortunate, callous and discriminatory. 8. Mr. T.K. Ray, learned Advocate General of Tripura sought our leave to assist us, which we granted. He contended that it is true that no writ of mandamus can be issued to the Parliament to amend the Act but having regard to the decision taken by the Union Government in the year 1987, which is apparent from the letter written by Minister, Law and Justice to the Governor of Assam and Meghalaya, which was reiterated in the Civil Rule providing that an independent High Court for Tripura will be established in due course, the Union Ministry of Law and Justice can be commanded to prepare an appropriate Bill in that regard to be placed for consideration in the Parliament. We should adjudicate issues raised on merits as our judgment will be of great help to the Parliament to take a decision in favour of the cry for a separate High Court for Tripura. 8.1. He also produced copy of a letter dated 24th June, 2004 of the Chief Secretary written to the Home Secretary, Government of India along with a note appended thereto and referred to them. 9. Mr. 8.1. He also produced copy of a letter dated 24th June, 2004 of the Chief Secretary written to the Home Secretary, Government of India along with a note appended thereto and referred to them. 9. Mr. S. Deb, the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 7 (the secretary, High Court Bar Association) contended that in the facts and circumstances emerging out of record, it is a fit case in which this Court should issue a writ of Mandamus to the Ministry of Law and Justice to prepare a comprehensive Bill, for amending the provisions seeking establishment of a separate High Court for Tripura in view of the decision taken by the Union Government and stand taken in pleadings of the Civil Rule No. 258 of 1995. 10. Mr. K.C. Bhattacharjee, the learned Asstt. Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and the learned Attorney General of India contended that he has instructions to contend a follows: In the year 2003 a review of the strength of the Gauhati High Court was undertaken, which resulted in taking" a decision that the Gauhati High Court including its Permanent Benches did not qualify for increase in the Judge strength, as the average rate of disposal per Judge per year during 1998-2002 was 1152, which was far below the national average of disposal of 1976.90 main cases. Further, on the parameters of pendency also there was no justification for increasing strength. Despite this, considering the imbalance caused due to transfer of Judges of the Gauhati High Court to other High Courts and keeping in view the special needs of the North Eastern Region, it was decided to create Eight posts of Additional Judges to meet the requirements of Benches in six State Capitals, out of which three posts will be of purely temporary in nature to be abolished automatically with the retirements of Mr. Justice S. Barman Roy, Mr. Justice Surjamani Singh and Dr. Justice Mukundakum Sharma on January 28, 2007, March 1, 2008 and September 18, 2008 respectively and that the total strength would be 17 permanent judges and 7 additional Judges as on September 18, 2008; and that the distribution of the new posts has been left to the discretion or decision of the Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court. Justice Mukundakum Sharma on January 28, 2007, March 1, 2008 and September 18, 2008 respectively and that the total strength would be 17 permanent judges and 7 additional Judges as on September 18, 2008; and that the distribution of the new posts has been left to the discretion or decision of the Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court. As no instruction has been received as to within what precise time the Govt. of India intends to give an effective shape to its earlier decision to establish an exclusive High Court for Tripura, therefore, he is unable to make any submission in this regard. 11. The moot question before us is as to whether as desired a writ in the nature of mandamus can be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to command the Parliament to amend the provisions of the Act for the purpose of establishing a separate High Court for the State of Tripura? 12. Article 231(1) of the Constitution reads as under: Notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding provisions of this Chapter, Parliament may by law establish a common High Court for two or more States or for two or more States and a Union territory. Thus, true it is that under Article 214 of the Constitution of India there shall be a High Court for each State, but Article 231 contemplates vesting of authority in the Parliament in regard to establishment of a High Court for two or more States. 13. From the pleadings brought on the record and the various documents in form of Annexures, it is crystal clear that there is a long standing demand for establishment of a separate High Court for Tripura. The State Legislature had also proceeded to adopt such a resolution. But all these were considered and our Parliament came with enactment in the year 1971 for establishment of only a common High Court for all the seven North Eastern States. The Presidential Order also came to be passed for establishment of a permanent Bench at Agartala in which minimum three Judges are required to be posted. The stand of the Government of India is categorical before us that as per the guidelines there is no necessity to increase the Judges' strength at the Permanent Bench at Agartala or for establishment of a separate High Court for Tripura. 14. The stand of the Government of India is categorical before us that as per the guidelines there is no necessity to increase the Judges' strength at the Permanent Bench at Agartala or for establishment of a separate High Court for Tripura. 14. The limitation of writ issuing jurisdiction of the High Court in the nature of mandamus is well known. In M/s Narinder Chand Hem Raj and Ors. v. Lt. Governor, Administrator, Union Territory, Himachal Pradesh AIR 1971 SC 2399 and in State of Jammu and Kashmir v. A.R. Zakki and Ors. AIR 1992 SC 1546 it was clearly laid down by the Apex Court that Mandamus can not be issued to the Legislature to enact a particular legislation. In this context also, relevant is the maxim, quando aliquid prohibetur et omne per quod deventiur adillud: "whatever is prohibited by law to be done directly cannot legally be effected by an indirect and circuitous contrivance" and another dictum accepted by the Privy Council in Nazir Ahmed v. King Emperor AIR 1936 PC 253 "when a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden", which has been approved by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions. 15. The theory of separation of powers, envisaged by Montesquieu was adopted by the founding fathers of the Constitution of India, after great deliberation who gave it a concrete shape as a result of which the Government comprises three wings, the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. True vide Article 50 of the Constitution of India Judiciary is required to be separated from the Executive, which according to the Apex Court is one of the salient features of our Constitution besides it (the Judiciary) is one of the central pillars of our Parliamentary democracy with whom stands vested powers of judicial review of actions, which may be taken by the Executive or even its non-action, though these three institutions are required to respect each other also. The High Court cannot act as a Court of Revision against the Parliament in this regard. 16. The decisions relied upon by Mr. Das are no authority justifying issuance of a writ of mandamus either to the Governmental functionaries including the bureaucrats and/or to the Parliament for the purpose of amending the Act. 17. The High Court cannot act as a Court of Revision against the Parliament in this regard. 16. The decisions relied upon by Mr. Das are no authority justifying issuance of a writ of mandamus either to the Governmental functionaries including the bureaucrats and/or to the Parliament for the purpose of amending the Act. 17. On some occasion may be due to shortage of Judges and/or pendency of few cases at the six Permanent Benches as compared to the Principal Seat, the Chief Justice may not have inducted the required minimum number of Judges at the permanent Benches, but this could be only a temporary state of affairs. No sooner the sanctioned strength of the Gauhati High Court is filled, there may not be dearth of judges to be stationed at the permanent Bench at Agartala. This at best may be taken to be a teething problem. 18. Thus, it is not possible for us to issue the desired Mandamus. 19. Despite all these, we express hope and trust in the Govt., of India that no sooner a suitable time and occasion comes it will make its endeavours, as decided by it for establishment of an exclusive High Court for the State of Tripura, as reflected in the letter written by the then Law Minister and reiterated in its Counter in the proceedings of Civil Rule No. 258 of 1995. 20. We also express hope and trust in regard to the stand taken in Counter of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to consider concerning certain matter if raised by the Government of Tripura through its representation to the Union Government. 21. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly, but in the peculiar facts and circumstances, we make no order as to cost. 22. We thank the learned Advocate General, Tripura for rendering his assistance. 23. Let a copy of this order be handed over to Mr. K.C. Bhattacharjee, the learned Asstt. Solicitor General of India for its intimation to the Government of India.