JUDGMENT Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud,Chief Justice and Yashwant Varma, J. The jurisdiction in a PIL is invoked for seeking the following reliefs: "(i) to issue a Writ, Order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the State Government to consider, within such period as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court whether Rent Control Tribunals should be constituted for every districts in Uttar Pradesh or nor for speedy disposal of Rent Control Cases/in order to deliver speedy justice to Litigants. (ii) to issue a Writ, Order or direction in the nature of Mandamus Commanding the Respondent No.3 to ensure that the provision of amended Section 179 of the U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1959 is implemented in entirety by all the Municipal Corporation in Uttar Pradesh (including the Respondent No. 7). (iii) to issue a Writ, Order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the State Government to make appropriate amendment in U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 so that the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Mohammad Ahmad Versus Atma Ram Chauhan (reported in 2011 (7) SCC 755 may be made Statutory guidelines. (iv) to issue a Writ, Order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Concerned Respondents to issue guidelines for payment of House Rent Allowance to Government Employees only after being satisfied that the Government Employee has made Payment of Agreed Rent to the landlord and has deposited entire property taxes in respect of the portion in his Tenancy (in case the building is governed by the Provisions of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972) directly in concerned Nagar Nigam (Municipal Corporation)." 2. We will deal with each of the reliefs seriatim. 3. Insofar as prayer (i) is concerned, Section 2-B of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 19721 was inserted by U.P. Act No. 28 of 1976, with effect from 5 July 1976. Under sub-section (1) of Section 2-B, the State Government is empowered, by a notified order, to constitute one or more Tribunals, to be called Rent Control Tribunals in each district and is likewise empowered to cancel or modify such orders. Under sub-section (1) of Section 2-B, the State Government is empowered, by a notified order, to constitute one or more Tribunals, to be called Rent Control Tribunals in each district and is likewise empowered to cancel or modify such orders. The petitioner has averred in paragraph 17 of the writ petition that on 6 December 1976, Rent Control Tribunals were constituted each for Kanpur, Lucknow and Varanasi but these were abolished by a subsequent notification dated 29 July 1977. Plainly, the provisions of Section 2-B confer a discretion on the Government to constitute Rent Control Tribunals. The High Court would not be justified in issuing a mandamus for the constitution of a Tribunal where the State Legislature has envisaged that it is for the Government to determine as to whether such Tribunals should constituted for any one or more district. 4. Prayer (ii) is for enforcing the provisions of Section 179 of the U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1959. Section 179 provides for a tax on the annual value of buildings or lands. Sub-section (2) provides that the tax shall be primarily leviable on the categories specified in clauses (a) to (d). There is no reason or justification for this Court to entertain a general prayer of this nature for the issuance of a mandamus to the third respondent, as prayed. The third respondent is the Secretary, Department of Local Bodies, Government of Uttar Pradesh. The provisions of the legislation bind all authorities and hence such a direction is not warranted. 5. Prayer (iii) is to issue a mandamus to effect an amendment in the Act of 1972. It is a well settled principle of law that a mandamus cannot be issued for amending a legislation since it lies within the constitutional power of the Parliament or, as the case may be, State Legislature. The guidelines which have been framed by the Supreme Court in Mohd. Ahmad vs. Atma Ram Chauhan, (2011) 7 SCC 755 have in paragraph 22 of the decision been recorded as being illustrative guidelines and norms but not exhaustive, which can be worked out between the landlord and tenant so as to avoid unnecessary litigation in court. There is no substance in the prayer or in the submission that a mandamus should be issued by the Court for an amendment by the State Legislature. 6. Prayer (iv) is thoroughly misconceived. There is no substance in the prayer or in the submission that a mandamus should be issued by the Court for an amendment by the State Legislature. 6. Prayer (iv) is thoroughly misconceived. No such mandamus in regard to the payment of house rent allowance to a government servant only subject to compliance with certain stipulated conditions can be issued. 7. Hence, we see no merit in the petition. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 8. There shall be no order as to costs.