Judgment : K.K. Sasidharan, J. 1. The petitioner, who is a practicing lawyer, has taken up a genuine cause for preserving the independence of lower judiciary. 2. According to the petitioner, Mahe is an outlying region situated within the geographical area of Kerala, but under the administration of the Union Territory of Pondicherry. There is a Sub Court functioning at Mahe. The High Court has directed the constitution of a Munsif Court at Mahe and the Government is in the process of establishing the Court of District Munsif. The Sub Judge at Mahe is functioning as Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rent Controller, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Labour Court. 3. The Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate is expected to visit police lock ups, and jail under various legislations. It is the contention of the petitioner that even for visiting the police lock up by way of surprise inspection, the Judicial Magistrate has to request the police to provide him a jeep. In case the visit is known to the police, in advance, it would be a futile exercise. Similarly, the Magistrate has to record dying declaration and for the said purpose he has to depend upon police for providing vehicle. The petitioner by placing reliance on the directions issued by the Supreme Court in All India Judges Association v. Union of India and others (1992) 1 SCC 119 contended that the Sub Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate at Mahe is exercising various functions which are undertaken in other areas by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and as such the provisions regarding official vehicle, driver and fuel should be made applicable to the Courts functioning in outlying regions of Mahe and Yanam. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader for the Union Territory of Pondicherry. 5. The Union Territory of Pondicherry comprises four regions viz., Pondicherry, Karaikal, Mahe and Yanam. The region of Mahe is situated about 636 kilometres away from the Capital. Similarly, Yanam is situated more than 700 kms from Pondicherry. The District Court is at Pondicherry. There are Subordinate Courts in Mahe and Yanam. There is an Additional District Court functioning at Karaikal. 6. The Government of Pondicherry have provided an official car to the Chief Judge, Pondicherry. The Government have also provided official vehicle to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry. Similar is the case with Karaikal. The District Court is at Pondicherry. There are Subordinate Courts in Mahe and Yanam. There is an Additional District Court functioning at Karaikal. 6. The Government of Pondicherry have provided an official car to the Chief Judge, Pondicherry. The Government have also provided official vehicle to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry. Similar is the case with Karaikal. We are now concerned with two outlying regions. 7. The Honourable Supreme Court in its judgment in All India Judges Association v. Union of India and others (1992) 1 SCC 119 and in the subsequent review judgment in All India Judges Association v. Union of India and others (1993) 4 SCC 288 issued several directions to the Union and State Administration to ensure proper infrastructure for Courts, besides facilities like accommodation, conveyance, etc. The Supreme Court disapproved the practice of judicial officers travelling by the same public conveyance with litigants and witnesses. 8. It is appropriate to quote paragraph 45 of the judgment in All India Judges Association v. Union of India and others (1993) 4 SCC 288 . "45. (vii) The provision of conveyance, loans for conveyance and conveyance allowance : It has been pointed out in the judgment under review that in most of the States the District Judge has been provided with a motor car and in some of the States the Chief Judicial Magistrate is also provided with transport whether car or a jeep. It is only in some States that a car is not provided for every District Judge. The need for such car both for the District Judge and the Chief Judicial Magistrate is also pointed out in the judgment. Both of them have to undertake touring in their District to supervise the work of the Judges and Magistrates working under them. They are not expected to undertake the touring either by public transport or by transport borrowed from the Government departments which is on many occasions not available when needed. What is further, the reliance on the Government departments for transport itself makes them supplicant which from the point of view of the judicial independence is undesirable. Further, the conveyance provided to them is meant to be used strictly for official purpose. What is further, the reliance on the Government departments for transport itself makes them supplicant which from the point of view of the judicial independence is undesirable. Further, the conveyance provided to them is meant to be used strictly for official purpose. Since for reasons more than one, there is a need to minimise the contacts between the Judges and the public and particularly to avoid their being exposed to physical risks at the hands of the dissatisfied litigants, their travelling by the same public conveyance by which the litigants and their witnesses travel, has to be avoided. Hence, the direction given is also for a pool vehicle for other judicial officers in sets of 5 and failing that for a loan on suitable terms to enable the Judges to acquire at least two-wheeler automobiles. In this context, the direction to construct official residences for Judges at one place becomes more relevant. The Judges can then travel by the same vehicle from and to the court. The provision of the conveyance allowance is no substitute for an independent conveyance. As has been rightly pointed out: “It is impossible for a Judge to discharge his functions properly if he knows that during the day he will sit on the Bench with a prisoner in the dock before him and later in the evening he may have to sit side by side with the same prisoner in the public transport.” In the circumstances, the necessity to distance the Judges from the public needs no emphasis. Amidst the growing cult of violence today, it has become imperative. Fortunately, we do not find much opposition to this direction and we learn that most of the States have by now carried out the same." 9. There is no dispute that the Government is the major litigant. The prosecution is launched only by the police. Therefore, State is one of the contesting parties in all the criminal proceedings. It is trite that justice should not only be done, but it should also appear to be done. In case the Magistrate, who has to decide a bail application or a criminal case charge-sheeted by the police, regularly comes to the Court in a police vehicle, naturally, the accused would entertain a reasonable apprehension of bias. 10. It is trite that justice should not only be done, but it should also appear to be done. In case the Magistrate, who has to decide a bail application or a criminal case charge-sheeted by the police, regularly comes to the Court in a police vehicle, naturally, the accused would entertain a reasonable apprehension of bias. 10. This Court has already directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate to conduct surprise inspection in jails and police lock ups and submit a report to the High Court. Lock up visit would be a mockery, if the Magistrate makes a request to the police to provide him jeep to visit the police station. The surprise inspection of jails and lock ups in such cases would be meaningless. 11. The Sub Judicial Magistrate functioning at Mahe and Yanam must be given the conveyance facilities, in view of the nature of duty performed in the outlying regions. We are therefore inclined to direct the Government of Pondicherry to provide an official Car to the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate at Mahe and Yanam. 12. In the result, a writ of Mandamus is issued directing the respondent to provide an official Car to the Sub-Judge-cum-Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate at Mahe and Yanam with provision for fuel and driver. In case of delay in sanctioning the post of Driver, the learned Judges of those Courts should be permitted to engage a temporary driver on daily wages. Such exercise shall be completed on or before 30 June 2014. 13. The writ petition is allowed as indicated above. No costs.