JUDGMENT : NOOTY.RAMAMOHANA RAO, J. This Writ Appeal is instituted under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, calling in question the correctness of the Order and Judgment rendered by our learned brother S.Sivagnanam,J., dismissing the writ petition instituted by the appellant herein, calling in question the correctness of the communication bearing ROC 3080/2014/DS dated 21st July, 2014 issued by the Registrar (Administration), High Court of Madras, Chennai, informing the writ petitioner that the replacement of tube lights will be undertaken only in the corridor (common areas) and not in the Chambers of the Advocates. 2. The facts which are only relevant for our enquiry are that the writ petitioner appears to be a co-allottee of Chamber No.281 of New Additional Law Chambers situated in the High Court premises at Chennai. He seems to have addressed a communication to the Registrar (Administration) of High Court on 27.06.2014, seeking replacement of two tube lights in the said Chamber, which appear to have fused out. The request of the writ petitioner having been declined in the aforesaid manner, the Writ Petitioner preferred the Writ Petition. 3.The main theme of the contention canvassed is that the order of allotment dated 27th January, 2005, stipulated certain conditions to be complied with by the main allotee and co-allotees and since the Registrar (Administration) is collecting monthly rent for the Chambers at the rate of Rs.4/- per sq.ft and monthly maintenance charges for the Chambers at the rate of Rs.2/- per sq.ft., apart from collecting payment of actual electricity consumption charges as determined based upon the consumption recorded in the individual meters fixed to the respective chambers, it is for the Registrar (Administration) of this High Court to provide for the replacement of the tube-lights. That contention having not been accepted the learned single Judge, resulting in the dismissal of the Writ Petition, the present Writ Appeal is preferred. Once again the appellant has preferred to appear in person and make his submissions. The Registry has raised an objection about the maintainability of this Appeal. 4. That contention having not been accepted the learned single Judge, resulting in the dismissal of the Writ Petition, the present Writ Appeal is preferred. Once again the appellant has preferred to appear in person and make his submissions. The Registry has raised an objection about the maintainability of this Appeal. 4. We had the benefit of hearing Sri R.Muthukrishnan, for a considerable length of time and we now proceed to pass the following order: (i) Under Article 214 of our Constitution, there shall be a High Court for every State and as per Article 216, every High Court shall consist of a Chief Justice and such other Judges, as the President may from time to time deem it necessary to appoint. The administration of the High Court as well as the Courts subordinate thereto lies with that of the Chief Justice. For convenience sake, he may constitute various Special Committees and entrust them with specified tasks, which would enable the High Court collectively or whenever it is so required, the Chief Justice on the administrative side can take an appropriate decision. Further, to help the Chief Justice in administering properly and to carefully carry out his directives, several Officers are appointed, including the Registrars thereto. One such Officer is the Registrar (Administration), who is required to carry out such directions issued by the Chief Justice or the companion Judges of the Chief Justice on certain matters concerning the Administration. Therefore, the Registrar (Administration) of the High Court is only an Officer/functionary of the High Court and he does not have any independent status of decision making of his own, particularly concerning the general policy touching upon the Administration of the High Court. He is essentially entrusted with the task of carrying out such duties which are assigned to him or such tasks which have been specifically entrusted to him. In short, he works under the overall control of the Chief Justice. (ii) Unfortunately, neither the High Court of Madras nor the State of Tamil Nadu or for that matter Union of India has been impleaded as party respondents by the writ petitioner/appellant. The High Courts do not have power to generate financial resources on their own. The court fee which is paid by the litigants is not to be appropriated by the High Court, but, it is required to be remitted to the State Fund. The High Courts do not have power to generate financial resources on their own. The court fee which is paid by the litigants is not to be appropriated by the High Court, but, it is required to be remitted to the State Fund. It is the State Government concerned or sometimes, it might approach the Union Government to make available funds for the purpose of carrying out certain important tasks concerning respective High Courts or to meet the expenditure incurred both recurring and non-recurring for running the High Court and the Courts subordinate to it. When the State Government makes available the necessary funds to the High Court, the High Court administers those fund based upon the budgetary approvals which were prepared and submitted on an annual basis. (iii) Prudent Management of the available financial resources, is an inherent obligation of the High Court. In that process it refrains itself from indulging in or incurring certain expenditure, while at the same time it spends money on certain other approved and important aspects relating to administration of justice. Certain minimum facilities are provided, such as drinking water, washrooms, seating arrangements or waiting rooms for the litigant, public or for those who visit the High Court or Courts generally. If a Chamber is allotted to a Lawyer/Advocate to enable him to carry on his professional activity far more efficiently and usefully, it is only a facility. It is not under any enforceable obligation that Chambers are allotted to Lawyers/Advocates and practically, it may not be possible or to make available chambers to all the practitioners of law at the High Court or at any other Courts. Infrastructural facilities available are extremely limited and can only be put to as effective and as efficient a Management as is only allowable to its optimum. Therefore, within these constraints, both in the form of infrastructural limitation or otherwise, things have to be operated. (iv) It is no doubt true that a licence fee at the rate of Rs.4/- per sq.ft. might have been charged from each of the allotees, that was only an insignificant amount charged for recouping an equally insignificant part of the huge capital expenditure incurred by the State. The maintenance charge at the rate of Rs.2/- per sq.ft. is obviously charged to maintain the upkeep and to attend to other related activities of the Building. might have been charged from each of the allotees, that was only an insignificant amount charged for recouping an equally insignificant part of the huge capital expenditure incurred by the State. The maintenance charge at the rate of Rs.2/- per sq.ft. is obviously charged to maintain the upkeep and to attend to other related activities of the Building. Every multistoried building and every building where large numbers of men and women spend considerable amount to time, are required to be provided with certain common facilities in the form of corridors, staircases, lifts, elevators, wash rooms, etc. There must be men deployed to attend to these facilities for operationalizing them on day-to-day basis and also attend to their periodical maintenance works. The expenditure incurred in that regard including some of the consumables used such as disinfectants, detergents, deodorants etc., has also to be defrayed and for that purpose, the maintenance charges are collected. (v) In our opinion, therefore, collection of licence fee of Rs.4/- per sq.ft. or maintenance charges at the rate of Rs.2/- per sq.ft. from the allotees of Law Chambers available in the High Court of Madras or for that matter anywhere else does not necessarily fasten a liability to maintain the infrastructure, including electrical fittings and fixtures provided inside the chambers allotted to lawyers/Advocates. It is for the respective allotees to attend to the maintenance and upkeep of such fittings and fixtures inside the Chambers. If there is a window also provided to a Chamber, it is for the allotees to maintain the glass panes or mosquito mesh provided to such a window. It is also for them to maintain the curtain holders and the curtains draped around the window. Equally, if there is any other fitting such as an Electric Fan or an Air-Conditioner or a wash basin provided inside the chambers, its upkeep maintenance and replacement in cases of necessity, is to be attended to by the respective allotee. In principle also for want of necessary funds available with the High Court to attend to such expenditure, the High Court cannot attend to such works. (vi) It is now brought to our notice that High Court of Madras is not the only Institution which is not attending to the maintenance or replacement of electrical fittings and other fixtures inside the Chambers allotted to Lawyers. (vi) It is now brought to our notice that High Court of Madras is not the only Institution which is not attending to the maintenance or replacement of electrical fittings and other fixtures inside the Chambers allotted to Lawyers. We are informed that the High Court of Kerala, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, the High Court of Gujarat, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, the High Court of Chhattishgarh, the High Court of Delhi, the High Court of Jharkhand, the High Court of Bombay, etc., have also been following the same practice viz. leaving it to the respective allotees to attend to the necessary upkeep and maintenance, including replacement of the fixtures and fittings including electrical fittings provided inside the Chambers allotted to them. The expenditure in that regard is never met by the respective High Courts. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the communication sent by the Registrar (Administration) of the High Court to the writ petitioner/appellant informing him that he has to spend for it, cannot be taken exception to. (vii) The High Court of Madras or the State of Tamil Nadu or the Union of India have not been impleaded. Of them, the High Court of Madras and the State of Tamil Nadu are certainly proper and necessary parties. It is a fundamental principle that where proper and necessary parties are not impleaded to a lis, such a lis can be rejected for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties. (viii) Additionally, it is also brought to our notice that the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, has through its communication dated 24th February, 2016, informed the High Court that in compliance of the order dated 22nd December, 2015 passed by the High Court in Review Application No.294 of 2015, disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against Thiru R.Muthukrishnan, the present writ petitioner/appellant and that the said disciplinary proceedings have been referred to the Disciplinary Committee-VI of the Bar Council. It is also brought out in the said communication that the Bar Council has passed a prohibitory order vide Resolution in ROC No.588/2016 dated 6th February, 2016, against Mr.R.Muthukrishnan (Enroll No.Ms.246(A)/1990), prohibiting him from practicing as an Advocate in any Court of law, Tribunal etc., either in his own name or in any assumed name, till the disposal of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. (ix) We do not have any further information updated thereafter, disclosing the result of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the present writ petitioner/appellant. We, hence, infer that they are still pending. If a practitioner of law has been prohibited from practicing law, it is for him to sort out as to whether any such prohibition has been validly and justifiably imposed or not. At this stage, we are not so much concerned with that issue of the matter. It is for the writ petitioner/appellant to sort out all his difficulties in accordance with law. (x) No right of the Writ Petitioner/Appellant having been breached, the Writ Petition and this Appeal are not maintainable. 5. For the aforementioned reasons, we see no merit in the Writ Appeal and accordingly, we dismiss the Writ Appeal and impose token costs of Rs.500/- to be paid by the writ petitioner/appellant, within fifteen days from today to the Madras High Court Legal Services Authority. Consequently, CMP No.Sr32206 of 2016, is also dismissed.