ORDER I.A. Ansari, J. 1. Have heard Mr. A. Zhirnomi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mrs. Y. Longkumer, learned Govt. Advocate, appearing for the respondents. 2. Lamented George Bernard Shaw in his preface, entitled "Preface on Bosses", written for his play The Millioneress'. "The law is equal before all of us, but we are not all equal before the law". Lest this epitaph on the justice delivery system does not turn into an absolute reality or becomes a permanent feature of the judicial administration, imperative it is that justice delivery system be one, which ensures to its people reasonable, fair and just procedure. Can a Justice delivery system be regarded fair, just and reasonable, if the Advocates, as a class, are excluded, as a whole, from the justice delivery system itself ? The answer to this question has to be an unhesitant and emphatic "no", for when Advocates are regarded as Officers of the Court the Advocates, as a class, become an integral and inseverable part of the judicial system, which we have adopted under our Constitution. The exclusion of the Advocates, as a class, from the real of judicial justice' can be on the strength of specific legislation or by creating, without support of law, such situations, which may, in effect, remove the Bar, as a whole, from the entire justice delivery system. 3. In the above backdrop of facts governing the administrator of justice, let me unfold the facts and material stages, which have given rise to the present writ petition. 4. The Nagaland Bar Association was formed in the year 1969. It is the Apex Bar Association in the State of Nagaland inasmuch as the High Court Bar Association, Dimapur Bar Association and Mokokchung Bar Association are affiliated to the Nagaland Bar Association. The office complex of the Deputy Commissioner Dimapur, was constructed in the early seventies and the said office complex began functioning, sometimes, in the year 1974. At that point of time, Dimapur area was a Sub-Division under Kohima district and its administration was headed by an Additional Deputy Commissioner. In the office complex of the Deputy Commissioner/Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, aforementioned are also located, presently, the Court of Addl. Deputy Commissioner (Judicial) and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 5. At that point of time, Dimapur area was a Sub-Division under Kohima district and its administration was headed by an Additional Deputy Commissioner. In the office complex of the Deputy Commissioner/Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, aforementioned are also located, presently, the Court of Addl. Deputy Commissioner (Judicial) and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 5. In the State of Nagaland, there is no formal separation of judiciary from the executive and in terms of the Administration of Justice and Police Rules in Nagaland, 1937, the administrative officers discharge not only executive functions, but also exercise judicial powers, in short thus, in Nagaland, the administrative officer, while discharging the executive function, also discharges various judicial powers. When the office of the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, which is presently the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, was established in the year 1974, the Nagaland Bar Association (in short, the 'petitioner Association') was allotted one room at the ground floor thereof. By an order, dated 5-6-2003, addressed to the petitioner Association, Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, informed the petitioner Association that the room, which is in the possession of the petitioner Association, is required to accommodate the officers of the Deputy Commissioner's establishment and, hence, the petitioner Association shall vacate the said room within 15-6-2003. Responding to the letter, dated 5-6-2003, aforementioned, the President of the petitioner Association made a representation, on 13-6-2003, addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, bringing it to the notice of the latter that the lawyers have been appearing in all the Courts of the administrative officers and also in judicial courts in the said building and that the number of Advocates being also on the rise, the present accommodation provided to the petitioner Association was grossly inadequate and, hence, the petitioner Association is not in a position to vacate the said room as it still requires the said room for accommodating its own members. Reacting to the representation so addressed to him, the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, passed an order, dated 26-6-2003, informing the petitioner Association that the room, which is in the occupation of the petitioner Association, was required for the newly posted officers and, hence, the petitioner Association shall vacate the room within seven days from the date of issue of the order, it is this order, which stands impugned in the present writ petition. 6. 6. It is agitated, in the writ petition, that since there is no formal separation of judiciary from the executive in the State of Nagaland and many a times, the Advocates have to represent their clients in challenging the order(s) passed by the administrative officers, who also discharge judicial functions, a serious resentment develops amongst the administrative officers, who are also vested with the judicial powers, against the Advocates as a class and it is this resentment, which culminated into passing of the order dated 26-6-2003, aforementioned. This apart contends the petitioner Association, when the judicial Courts and Tribunal are located in the said office complex and when even the executive officers discharge judicial functions, it is the duty of the State to provide accommodation to the advocates inside the said office complex and when the petitioner Association has only one room, there is no justification in directing them to vacate the said room. 7. The respondents, it may be noted, have not filed any affidavit. The averments made in the writ petition have, thus, gone wholly unchallenged. Situated thus, this Court has no option but to hold, as I do hold, that the averments made in the writ petition stand admitted by the respondents and the admission is to the effect that the petitioner Association does need the room, in question, for accommodating its own members and that it is the duty of the State to provide accommodation to Advocates in order to enable them to appear in various judicial Courts. 8. In order to appreciate the grave issue, which the present petitioner has raised, it is pertinent to mention that the judicial powers exercised by any Court or any officer is really an exercise of power on behalf of the Sovereign or on behalf of the State. 9. Made it clear the Apex Court, I may point out in All India Judges Association v. Union of India that the judicial service is not really a service in the sense of employment, for, Judges are not employees inasmuch as they exercise, as members of the judiciary, the Sovereign judicial powers of the State. This aspect becomes explicit when, we take into account the observations made in All India Judges' Association (supra), which run thus (paras 4 & 5) : The judicial service is not service in the sense of 'employment'. The Judges are not employees. This aspect becomes explicit when, we take into account the observations made in All India Judges' Association (supra), which run thus (paras 4 & 5) : The judicial service is not service in the sense of 'employment'. The Judges are not employees. As members of the judiciary, they exercise the sovereign judicial power of the State. They are holders of public offices in the same way as the members of the council of ministers and the members of the legislature. When it is said that in a democracy such as ours, the executive, the legislature and the judiciary constitute the three pillars of the State, what is intended to be conveyed is that the three essential functions of the State are entrusted to the three organs of the State and each one of them in turn represents the authority of the State. However, those who exercise the State power are the Ministers, the Legislators and the Judges, and not the members of their staff who implement or assist in implementing their decisions. The council of ministers or the political executive is different from the secretarial staff or the administrative executive which carries out the decisions of the political executive. Similarly, the Legislatures are different from the legislative staff. So also the Judges from the judicial staff. The parity is between the political executive, the Legislators and the Judges and not between the Judges and the administrative executive. In some democracies like the USA, members of some State Judiciaries are elected as much as the members of the legislature and the heads of the State. The Judges, at whatever level they may be, rep resent the State and its authority unlike the administrative executive or the members of the other services. The members of the other services, therefore, cannot be placed on a par with the members of the judiciary either constitutionally or functionally. 10. What the decision in All India Judges Association (supra) shows is that a person, exercising the judicial powers at any level, high or low, really exercises Sovereign judicial powers on behalf of the State. When so considered, it becomes transparent that even in a system, such as Nagaland, wherein the executive is not formally, separated from the judiciary, yet when an executive officer exercises judicial powers, the exercise of such powers is really the exercise of Sovereign judicial powers of the State. When so considered, it becomes transparent that even in a system, such as Nagaland, wherein the executive is not formally, separated from the judiciary, yet when an executive officer exercises judicial powers, the exercise of such powers is really the exercise of Sovereign judicial powers of the State. Since the Advocates form an integral part of the justice delivery system that we have in this" country, burden to ensure participation of the Advocates, as a class, in the system, which dispenses justice, rests on the State. 11. If the State has to survive as a Sovereign, it must ensure to its people that justice would be delivered even handed and the procedure followed will be just fair and reasonable. Indeed, the Preamble to the Constitution of India promises to its people that it will secure to them justice, social, economic and political. If it is to be, ensured that justice is made available to everyone, high or low, rich or poor, powerful or weak, literate or illiterate, learned or ignorant, brave or timid, forceful or feeble, the Courts are required to be strengthened. When the Courts are to be strengthened to secure justice to everyone, the Advocates, who are treated as officers of the Courts, have to be strengthened rather than being weakened or truncated. Therefore, the State, instead of weakening the Advocates as a class, or taking any step, which has the tendency of impairing the status of the Advocates as officers of the Court shall help the Advocates grow in strength, both numerically as well as qualitatively. If this philosophy has to survive, the State shall eschew all steps, which have the tendency to disable the litigants from receiving the services of advocates. 12. The question may be asked as to why a lawyer is indispensable for an effective justice delivery system unless consciously excluded from the process of participation. The answer to this question will depend upon the realization of the role of a lawyer in the judicial process, for justice that is delivered by the Courts has been aptly described by Krishna Iyer, J. as judicial justice. 13. The role of a lawyer as art officer of the Court has to be considered from multiple angles. When the State prosecutes a person as an accused, the State engages, in the interest of the public a class of advocates known as Prosecutors. 13. The role of a lawyer as art officer of the Court has to be considered from multiple angles. When the State prosecutes a person as an accused, the State engages, in the interest of the public a class of advocates known as Prosecutors. There was a time, when no reciprocal measure was taken by the State to protect the interest of any accused by providing him with assistance of an efficient lawyer. This discrimination gave rise to the concept of legal aid in England as well as the United States of America. Taking cue from the provisions contained in Chapters III & IV of the Constitution of India, particularly, the provisions embodied in Articles 14, 21 and 39A, the Courts, in India, evolved the process of legal aid which eventually stands translated in the form of the National Legal Services Authority Act, 1987. 14. Describing the invaluable role, which a lawyer plays in the judicial process, referred to as 'judicial justice', Krishna Iyer, J., observed in Madhav Hayawadanrao Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra reported in 1978 CriLJ 1678 thus. "14. The other ingredient of fair procedure to a prisoner, who has to seek his liberation through the Court process is lawyer's services, Judicial justice with procedural intricacies, legal submissions and critical examination of evidence, leans upon professional expertise; and a failure of equal justice under the law is on the cards where such supportive skill is absent for one side. Our judicature, moulded by Anglo-American models and our judicial process, engineered by kindred legal technology compel the collaboration of lawyer power for steering the wheels of equal justice under the law. Free legal services to the needy is part of the English criminal justice system. And the American jurist. Prof. Vance of Yale, sounded sense for India too when, he said : (Justice and Reform, Earl Johnson, Jr. p. 11): What does it profit a poor and ignorant man that he is equal to his strong antagonist before the law if there is no one to inform him what the law is ? Or that the Courts are open to him on the same terms as to all other persons when he has not the wherewithal to pay the admission fee ? 17. More recently, the US Supreme Court, in Raymond Hamlin has extended this processual facet of Poverty Jurisprudence. Or that the Courts are open to him on the same terms as to all other persons when he has not the wherewithal to pay the admission fee ? 17. More recently, the US Supreme Court, in Raymond Hamlin has extended this processual facet of Poverty Jurisprudence. Douglas, J. there explicated : (John Richard Argersinger v. Raymond Hamlin (1972) 407 US 25 : 35 LEd 530. The right to be heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be heard by counsel. Even the intelligent and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law. If charged with crime, he is incapable, generally, of determining for himself whether the indictment is good or bad. He is unfamiliar with the rules of evidence. Left without aid of counsel he may be put on trial without a proper charge, and convicted upon incompetent evidence, or evidence irrelevant to the issue or otherwise inadmissible. He lacks both the skill and knowledge adequately to prepare his defence, even though he has a perfect one. He requires the guiding head of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him. Without, though he be not guilty, he faces the danger of conviction because he does not know how to establish his innocence. If that be true of men of intelligence, how much more true is it of the ignorant and illiterate or those of feeble intellect. 15. The above observations made in Madhav Hayawardawrao Hoskot 1978 CriLJ 1678 (supra), show that since our procedure or scheme for administration of justice in the realm of criminal law gives rise to several intricate questions of facts as well as law and demand skillful counselling and guidance of a person, who is well-versed in law, such a procedure cannot be regarded fair unless it makes available the services of knowledgeable and skillful lawyers to the one, who prosecutes, as well as the one, who defends, and when the State pays for the lawyers, who prosecutes, the State must not deny to pay for the one, who defends the rights of the prisoner. 16. 16. Though the above observations made in Madhav Hayawardawrao Hoskot 1978 CriLJ 1678 (supra) are meant for the criminal trials, the fact remains that these observations, if carefully analysed, leave no room for doubt that no pragmatic scheme of dispensation of justice can yield desired result unless the procedure adhered to is just, fair and reasonable and no process can be fair unless it makes available to a litigant the services of a lawyer, when one, embroiled in such system, needs the guidance of a man, who knows the intricacies of the legal system and has the skill to help the needy to enable him to receive justice. 17. Reiterating broadly what it had already held in Madhav Hayawadanrao Hoskot 1978 CriLJ 1678 (supra), the Apex Court in Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna reported in 1979 CriLJ 1045 speaking through Bhagawati, J. observed as under : 6... Thus unfortunate situation cries aloud for introduction of an adequate and comprehensive legal service program, but so far, these cries do not seem to have evoked any response. We do not think it is possible to reach the benefits of the legal process to the poor, to protect them against injustice and to secure to them their constitutional and statutory rights unless there is a nation wide legal service program to provide free legal services to them. It is now well settled, as a result of the decision of this Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India that when Article 21 provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law it is not enough that there should be some semblance of procedure provided by law, but the procedure under which a person may be deprived of his life or liberty should be 'reasonable, fair and just'. Now, a procedure which does not make available legal services to an accused person who is too poor to afford a lawyer and who would, therefore, have to go through the trial without legal assistance, cannot possible be regarded as 'reasonable, fair and just'. It is an essential ingredient of reasonable, fair and just procedure to a prisoner who is to seek his liberation through the Court's process that he should have legal services available to him. It is an essential ingredient of reasonable, fair and just procedure to a prisoner who is to seek his liberation through the Court's process that he should have legal services available to him. This Court pointed out in M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra 1978 CriLJ 1678, Judicial Justice, with procedural intricacies, legal submissions and critical examination of evidence, leans upon professional expertise; and a failure of equal justice under the law is on the cards where such supportive skill is absent for one side. Our judicature, moulded by Anglo-American models and our judicial process, engineered by kindred legal technology, compel the collaboration of lawyer-power for steering the wheels of equal justice under the law. Free legal services to the poor and the needy is a essential element of any 'reasonable, fair and just' procedure. It is not necessary to quote authoritative pronouncements by Judges and jurists in support of the view that without the service of a lawyer an accused person would be denied reasonable, fair and just procedure. Black, J. observed in Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) 372 US 335 : 9 LEd 799 : Not only those precedents but also reason and reflection require us to recognize, that in our adversary system of criminal justice, any person haled into Court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him. This seems to us to be an obvious truth. Governments, both State and Federal quite properly spend vast sums of money to establish machinery to try defendants accused to crime Lawyers to prosecute are everywhere deemed essential to protect the public's interest in an orderly society. Similarly, there are few defendants charged with crime who fail to hire the best lawyers they can get to prepare and present their defences. That Government hires lawyers to prosecute and defendants who have the money hire lawyers to defend are the strongest indications of the widespread belief that lawyers in criminal Courts are necessities, not luxuries. The right of one charged with crime to counsel may not be deemed fundamental and essential to fair trials in some countries, but is in ours. From the very beginning, our State and national constitutions and laws have laid great emphasis on procedural and substantive safeguards designed to assure fair trials before impartial tribunals in which every defendant stands equal before the law. From the very beginning, our State and national constitutions and laws have laid great emphasis on procedural and substantive safeguards designed to assure fair trials before impartial tribunals in which every defendant stands equal before the law. This noble ideal cannot be realised if the poor man charged with crime has to face his accusers without a lawyer to assist him. The philosophy of free legal service as an essential element of fair procedure is also to be found in the following passage from the judgment of Douglas, J. in Jan Richard Argersinger v. Raymond Hamlin (1972) 407 US 25 : 35 LEd 530 : The right, to be heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the, right to be heard by counsel. Even the intelligent and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law. If charged with crime, he is incapable, generally, of determining for himself whether the indictment is good or bad. He is unfamiliar with the rules of evidence. Left without the aid of counsel he may be put on trial without a proper charge, and convicted upon incompetent evidence, or evidence irrelevant to the issue or otherwise inadmissible, He lacks both the skill and knowledge adequately to prepare his defence, even though he has a perfect one. He requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him. Without It, though he be not guilty, he faces the danger of conviction because he does not know how to establish his innocence. If that be true of men of intelligence, how much more true is it of the ignorant and illiterate or these of feeble intellect. x x x 9. We may also take this opportunity of impressing upon the Government of India as also the State Governments, the urgent, necessity of introducing a dynamic and comprehensive legal service program with a view to reaching justice to the common man. Today, unfortunately, in our country the poor are priced out of the judicial system with the result that they are losing faith in the capacity of our legal system to bring about changes in their life conditions and to deliver justice to them. The poor in their contact with the legal system have always been on the wrong side of the line. The poor in their contact with the legal system have always been on the wrong side of the line. They have always come across "law for the poor" rather than "law of the poor". The law is regarded by them as something mysterious and forbidding always taking something away from them and not as a positive and constructive social device for changing the social economic order and improving their life conditions by conferring rights and benefits on them. The result is that the legal system has lost its credibility for the weaker section of the community. It is, therefore, necessary that we should inject equal justice into legality and that can be done only by dynamic and activist scheme of legal services. We may remind the Government of the famous words of Mr. Justice Brennan. Nothing rankles more in the human heart than a brooding sense of injustice. Illness we can put up with. But injustice makes us want to pull things down. When only the rich can enjoy the law, as a doubtful luxury, and the poor, who need it most, cannot have it because its expense puts it beyond their reach, the threat to the continued existence of free democracy is not imaginary but very real, because democracy's very life depends upon making the machinery of justice so effective that every citizens shall believe in and benefit by its impartiality and fairness. and also recall what was said by Leeman Abbot years ago in relation to affluent America : If ever a time shall come when in this city only the rich can enjoy law as a doubtful luxury, when the poor who need it most cannot have it, when only a golden key will unlock the door to the Court room, the seeds of revolution will be sown, the fire-brand of revolution will be lighted and put into the hands of men and they will almost be justified in the revolution which will follow. We would strongly recommend to the Government of India and the State Government that it is high time that a comprehensive legal service program is Introduced in the country. That is not only a mandate of equal justice implicit in Article 14 and right to life and liberty conferred by Article 21, but also the compulsion of the constitutional directive embodied in Article 39-A. 18. That is not only a mandate of equal justice implicit in Article 14 and right to life and liberty conferred by Article 21, but also the compulsion of the constitutional directive embodied in Article 39-A. 18. From a conjoint reading of the decisions in All India Judges' Association (1993) II LLJ 776 SC (supra), Madhav Hayawadanrao Hoskot 1978 CriLJ 1678 (supra) and Hussainara Khatoon 1979 CriLJ 1045 (supra), what surfaces is that if the concept of equal justice system has to have any meaning and purpose, the State must ensure, apart from making available the legal aid under Article 39-A that the services of honest competent and efficient lawyers are made available to the litigants, particularly, those, who are financially not capable of obtaining services of high priced lawyers. In criminal as well as civil cases, 'equal justice' may not be available, when the litigation is between a rich and a poor, powerful and weak, literate and illiterate, if competent, efficient and honest lawyers are not made available by the judicial system itself to the litigants, who are weak, poor, ignorant and almost at the mercy of the State. 19. If Article 14 has to have any meaningful existence and if Article 21 is not to be a lifeless provision enshrined in the Constitution, imperative it is for the State to ensure that the person, who is in need of a lawyer, is able to receive the services of a competent and efficient lawyer and if such a person is unable to bear the expenses of a lawyer, State makes the same available to him in the form of legal aid. Articles 14 and 21 do not relate to merely criminal proceedings but also apply to civil proceedings and it is for this reason that measure have been adopted while enacting the Legal Services Authority Act, to ensure that the litigants of both civil as well as criminal proceedings -- receive, if need be, services of lawyers, who are efficient, at the expenses of the State. If the Bar is not strengthened by the State, the legal services, which may be made available even by the State, in the form of legal aid, will be an empty formality having no substance, for, it is of no use to the litigants to have services of a lawyer, who is incompetent dishonest and inefficient. If the Bar is not strengthened by the State, the legal services, which may be made available even by the State, in the form of legal aid, will be an empty formality having no substance, for, it is of no use to the litigants to have services of a lawyer, who is incompetent dishonest and inefficient. Desirable it is that the State assumes the responsibility of developing the efficiency of the lawyers as a class. No wonder, therefore, that in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Manubhat Pragaji Vashi AIR 1996 SC 1 , the Supreme Court emphasized the need for providing of aid-in-grant to recognized private law colleges in the following words :-- 17. In the light of the above, we have to consider the combined effect of Article 21 and Article 39-A of the Constitution of India. The right to free legal aid and speedy trial are guaranteed fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. The preamble to the Constitution of India assures "justice, social, economic and political". Article 39-A of the Constitution provides "equal justice" and "free legal aid". The State shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice. It means justice according to law. In a democratic polity, governed by rule of law, it should be the main concern of the State, to have a proper legal system. Article 39-A mandates that the State shall provide free legal aid by suitable legislation or schemes or in any other way to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities. The principles contained in Art. 39-A are fundamental and cast a duty on the State to secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, on the basis of equal opportunities and further mandates to provide free legal aid in any way -- by legislation or otherwise, so that justice is not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities. The crucial words are (the obligation of the State) to provide free legal aid "by suitable legislation or by schemes" or "in any other way", so that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities. The above words occurring in Article 39-A are of very wide import. The crucial words are (the obligation of the State) to provide free legal aid "by suitable legislation or by schemes" or "in any other way", so that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities. The above words occurring in Article 39-A are of very wide import. In order to enable the State to afford free legal aid and guarantee speedy trial, a vast number of persons trained in law are essential. Legal aid is required in many forms and at various stages, for obtaining guidance, for resolving disputes in Courts, tribunals or other authorities. It has manifold facets, The explosion in population, the vast changes brought about by scientific, technological and other developments, and the all-round enlarged field of human activity reflected in modern society, and the consequent increase in litigation in Courts and other forums demand that the service of competent persons with expertise in law is required in many stages and at different forums or levels and should be made available. The need for a continuing and well-organized legal education, is absolutely essential reckoning the new trends in the world order, to meet, the ever-growing challenges. The legal education should be able to meet the ever-growing demands of the society and should be thoroughly equipped to cater to the complexities of the different situations. 20. That a lawyer properly trained and educated in law, as the skill, ability and proficiency as well as the right to appear in a Court proceeding and can be helpful to the Court vis-a-vis a person, who has had no such training, is succinctly described by Krishna Iyer, J. in Hartshankar Rastogi v. Girdhari Sharma 1978 CriLJ 778 in the following words (Para 3) : If the man who seeks to represent has prior antecedents or irresponsible behaviour or dubious character, the Court may receive counter-productive service from him. Justice may fail if a knave were to represent a party, Judges may suffer if quarrel some, ill-informed or blackguardly or blockheadly private representatives filing arguments at the Court. Likewise, the party himself may suffer if his private representative deceives him or destroys his case by mendacious or meaningless submissions and with no responsibility or respect for the Court. Justice may fail if a knave were to represent a party, Judges may suffer if quarrel some, ill-informed or blackguardly or blockheadly private representatives filing arguments at the Court. Likewise, the party himself may suffer if his private representative deceives him or destroys his case by mendacious or meaningless submissions and with no responsibility or respect for the Court. Other situations, settings and disqualifications may be conceived of where grant of permission for a private person to represent another may be obstructives even destructive of Justice. Indeed, the Bar is an extension of the system of justice; an advocate is an officer of Court. He is master of an expertise but more than that, accountable to the Court and governed by a high ethic. The success of the judicial process often depends on the services of the legal profession. 4. Having regard to this conspectus of consideration I hold that a private person, who is, not an advocate, has no right to barge into Court and claim to argue for a party. He must get the prior permission of the Court, for which the motion must come from the party himself. It is open to the Court to grant or withhold permission in its discretion in fact, the Court may, even after grant of permission, withdraw it half-way through if the representative proves himself reprehensible, The antecedents, the relationship, the reasons for requisitioning the services of the private person and a variety of other circumstances must be gathered before grant or refusal of permission. In the present case I have noticed the petitioner and his friend who is to represent him, come together with mutual confidence. The party somehow has not shown sufficient confidence in advocate he has come by. This bodes ill for him. I should have suspected the association of the private person as having sinister implications of exploitation of a guideless party but suspicion by itself should not be the basis of a conclusion. Therefore, I think it right to give the party, who appears to be unable to represent his own case, an opportunity to present his grievance through his friend. That friend, judging by the note prepared and put in, seems to be familiar with law, although quacks can prove fatal friends. Therefore, I think it right to give the party, who appears to be unable to represent his own case, an opportunity to present his grievance through his friend. That friend, judging by the note prepared and put in, seems to be familiar with law, although quacks can prove fatal friends. I grant the petitioner permission to be represented by a private person as prayed for, with the condition that if this latter proves unworthy, the permission will be withdrawn. 21. From what has been discussed and pointed out above, it becomes abundantly clear that the nature of the duty, which an Advocate discharges, is in the nature of public duty and being an inseparable a part of the judicial system, the accommodation for a Bar must be treated as a part and parcel of a Court complex. A Court does not become a Court merely on construction of a Court-room or on providing of a Court-room with a Presiding Officer. A Court also does not become a Court merely with the presence of a Presiding Officer and the litigants inside a court-room. Ordinarily and unless specifically excluded from the process, a Court shall, normally consist of the Presiding Officer, litigants and the Advocates. Generally, the Advocates represent the interest of their respective clients, but at times, they assist the Court as Amicus Curiae. Even in the proceedings, wherein lawyers are specifically excluded from participation, there is no impediment, on the part of the Court in the facts and circumstances of a given case, to decide a case with the assistance of an Advocate as an Amicus Curiae, for, the aim of the Court is to ensure justice in accordance with law and an Advocate helps the Court in reaching its goal of securing justice to the parties concerned. 22. As much as we need a competent and honest judicial officer or Judge to dispense Justice in order to protect the rule of law, we also need competent and honest Advocate. Equally important, therefore, is that we make it possible for competent and honest Advocates to develop. Every lawyer may not have the financial capacity to have his own chamber in the vicinity of a Court complex. A rich lawyer may have such facilities available and a rich man may approach him for legal assistance. Equally important, therefore, is that we make it possible for competent and honest Advocates to develop. Every lawyer may not have the financial capacity to have his own chamber in the vicinity of a Court complex. A rich lawyer may have such facilities available and a rich man may approach him for legal assistance. For a poor man, to do so, either as a lawyer or as a client will be financially not feasible. The legal profession has no longer remained the profession of the rich and the nobilities. People from all strata of society, rich as well as poor join the legal profession today. The success of a person in the legal profession does not depend on whether he comes from a rich or a poor family, If the efficiency level of the Advocates has to be raised, which has to be raised if the Court proceedings have to render even handled justice, it, indeed, becomes the bounden duty of the State to ensure that the litigants have access to Advocates. In order to secure justice to every class of persons as litigants, necessary it is that the State fakes into account while setting up any Court or Court complex, the question of providing space and accommodation to the Advocates, within the precincts of the Court complex, so as to enable the litigants to engage counsel at reasonable expenses. Considered from the angle, it is also the duty of the High Court that it takes into account and ensures that whenever and wherever a Court or a Court complex is to be established, the provision for accommodation of the Advocates is made. 23. Effective working of judicial system or meaningful functioning of administration of justice is not possible unless the Advocates and the Judges, at every level work in the system as complementary components for each other. The relationship between the Bar and the Bench can be best compared with the two tracks of a railway train. They may run days and years together and they may go miles and miles together, yet they maintain a dignified and safe distance from each other and they help each other in having meaningful existence. The Bar and the Bench are, thus, two limbs of the same judicial system and make two wheels of the chariot of justice move evenly. They may run days and years together and they may go miles and miles together, yet they maintain a dignified and safe distance from each other and they help each other in having meaningful existence. The Bar and the Bench are, thus, two limbs of the same judicial system and make two wheels of the chariot of justice move evenly. The chariot of justice cannot move effectively and achieve the object set forth with both the wheels work and Junction complementing each other. Therefore, in a State, such as Nagaland, where majority of the Advocates are not in a position to acquire their own space in the vicinity of the Court complex, imperative it. is that the State ensures, that minimum possible facility, in the form of accommodation, is provided to the Advocates as a class in order to ensure that the justice delivery system remains meaningful and yields the desired result. 24. What impact injustice may cause on the society and the State was graphically described by Krishna Iyer, J. thus : "Law is a means to an end and justice is that end. But in actually, Law and Justice are distant neighbours: sometimes even strange hostiles. If law shoots down justice, the people shoot down law and lawlessness paralyses development, disrupts order and retards progress. This is the current scene." 25. How true the above observations are even today can be gauged from the fissiparous tendencies, which we see all around in the country today. We can ignore the over bearing impact, of the above words at our own peril. Let us be forewarned. "The hands, which build, are the hands, which pull down", if justice becomes inaccessible to common man for the reason that the skilful counselling of lawyers is not available or for any other reason the result will be anarchy, chaos and lawlessness. The biggest casualty of such a situation would be 'the rule of law and the highest beneficiary of such an unfortunate situation would be the lawbreaker. What the common man would then, miss is justice and what the society, as a whole, would miss is peace. 26. The biggest casualty of such a situation would be 'the rule of law and the highest beneficiary of such an unfortunate situation would be the lawbreaker. What the common man would then, miss is justice and what the society, as a whole, would miss is peace. 26. In the backdrop of what have been pointed out above, when I revert to the facts of the present case, what becomes glaring noticeable to the eyes is that the respondents have directed the petitioner Association to vacate the room in question, in order to enable the respondents to provide space for their own officers. While exercising power of judicial review in respect of an administrative decision, the High Court would not ordinarily, interfere with the decision, but will only examine the decision making process. When questioned, the authority, taking the administrative decision, must satisfy the Court that all relevant, factors had been taken into account by the authority concerned, while arriving at the decision, and that no irrelevant factor was taken into consideration, while reaching the decision. 27. In the case at hand, however, while the respondents, particularly, respondent No. 2 has taken into account the question of accommodation for the officers, who are required to be provided with space in order to enable them to discharge their duties, both judicial as well as executive, no attention has been paid, as reveals the impugned orders, by the respondent No. 2 and/or, for that matter, by any of the respondents as to what effect the removal of the petitioner Association from the said office complex, as a whole, would have on the question of access to justice by the litigants nor have the respondents taken into account the difficulties, which would be confronted by the litigants. The decision-making process, therefore, suffers from non-application of mind. This apart as I have already indicated hereinabove it is the constitutional obligation of the State to provide space for Advocates, as a class, in order to make Articles 14, 21 and 39-A meaningful and lively. 28. On considering the matter in its entirety and in the interest of justice, 1 am firmly of the view that the impugned order is wholly irrational and arbitrary and the same shall, if allowed to stand good on record, cause serious miscarriage of justice. 29. 28. On considering the matter in its entirety and in the interest of justice, 1 am firmly of the view that the impugned order is wholly irrational and arbitrary and the same shall, if allowed to stand good on record, cause serious miscarriage of justice. 29. In view of the discussions and observations made above the writ petition succeeds and the impugned order, dated 5-6-2003, as well as the impugned order, dated 26-6-2003 are hereby set aside and quashed. 30. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs. Petition allowed.