JUDGMENT 1. By order dated 23 December, 2013, the Division Bench of this Court had given certain directions in two paragraphs (paragraph 11 and again in paragraph 11) which we may refer to as paragraph 11 and paragraph 11A. The Division Bench observed that for accuracy and correctness of judicial pronouncements and verdicts, it is necessary that true and trustworthy publication of a Statute or a law book is placed before the Court. In Paragraph 11A, the Division Bench, directed the Principal Secretary in the Department of Law and Judiciary and the Principal Secretary in the Department of Finance together with the Registrar of this Court to take corrective steps so that within three to six months, all publications containing all amendments printed and published by the Government Printing Press are made available to the Principal Seat of this Court and equally the Benches. In paragraph 11, the Division Bench directed the Registry that hereinafter no private publication shall be produced unless the Registry of the High Court and the Judges' Library compare it with the original gazette publication and submit a report that the same concurs with the Gazette publication word by word, punctuation by punctuation, then alone, the same be purchased. Merely because, there is a short fall or shortage of bare texts does not mean that any and every publication should be acquired or purchased by the High Court. 2. Mr. Milind More, the learned AGP prayed for time to indicate what steps have been taken by the State Government, the Law and Judiciary Department and Department of Finance along with concerned departments and agencies of the State Government to comply with the aforesaid directions. At the request of learned AGP, we grant time of four weeks to file the report. 3. As regards the above directions, the learned Judges of the Division Bench appear to have overlooked the constitutional scheme expounded by the Supreme Court in High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan vs. P.P. Singh and Anr., (2003) 4 SCC 239 and High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan vs. Ramesh Chand Paliwal and Anr., (1998) 3 SCC 72 that the administration of the High Court vests in the Chief Justice. We have examined this question today while passing order in PIL No. 106 of 2014 also. 4. We have examined this question today while passing order in PIL No. 106 of 2014 also. 4. In view of the above and in view of practicable difficulties, the directions in para 11 of the order dated 23 December, 2013, quoted in para 2 hereinabove, are recalled. 5. Our attention has also been invited to PIL No. 7 of 2011 (The High Court of Mumbai through the Registrar General vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.) and PIL No. 14 of 2012 (Litigants Association, Maharashtra vs. Law and Judiciary Department and ors.) dealing with the same subject of the State Government not providing amended copies of the State Acts. In the order dated 30 September 2014 in PIL No. 14 of 2012, the Division Bench of A.S. Oka and G.S. Kulkarni, JJ. addressed itself to the issue of failure of State Government to provide up to date amended copies of the State Acts. The Court then directed the State Government to take steps for making available all the amended copies of the State laws and Rules on the State Government website and also indicating time limit within which such exercise shall be completed. This Court also observed that the State Government is under an obligation to provide printed copies of the Bare Acts of the State laws including the Rules. Similarly in PIL No. 7 of 2011 filed by the Registrar General of this Court, this Court has taken up the same issue and in the affidavit dated 4 February, 2015 filed by the Joint Secretary to the State Government in the Legal Department, the Government has indicated steps being taken for reprinting of 326 State Acts in force. 6. Since the above Division Bench is already seized of the issue, we are not inclined to take any further steps in the present proceedings being Writ Petition No. 404 of 2013. The writ petition will now be placed before the Division Bench to which the matter will be assigned by the Chief Justice.