JUDGMENT : S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J. 1. While dealing the Writ Petitions for final hearing, the following difficulties are realised both by the Members of the Bar as well as by this Court: (i) The Writ Petitions are not listed for years together for hearing. (ii) The Vacate Stay Petitions filed and numbered by the respective learned Counsels are not even listed once for hearing for more than five years in some cases and more than two, three years in many cases. (iii) The Counter Affidavits and the documents filed by the respective learned Counsels are not available with the case bundle. (iv) In many Writ Petitions, the Respondents have not at all filed their Counter Affidavits and Documents, if any, for more than five years and in some cases, more than seven or eight years. (v) Even in some cases, where Counter Affidavits are filed, the copies are not served to the opposite side learned Counsel and in some cases, the Counter Affidavits are not even available with the Court case papers. (vi) On account of non-availability of Counter or for the purpose of filing Counter, the respective learned Counsels are requesting for frequent adjournments and this Court has noticed that several adjournments on many occasions are granted to the learned Counsel for the Respondents to file their Counter and in spite of such adjournments, Counter Affidavits are not filed for years together. (vii) The cases are listed and the Courts are unable to get along with the cases on account of incompletion of pleadings by the respective parties, which all are not regulated. (viii) The Constitutional Courts cannot afford to grant such mechanical and routine adjournments. (ix) Adjournments are sought for by the litigants on some occasions, to avoid a particular Court or a particular Judge, which is to be construed as forum hunting as per the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. For instance, when the Port Folio tenure is going to be ended, then adjournments are sought for to avoid hearing of cases by a particular Court/Judge. Such a practice can never be encouraged. (x) On account of not filing the Counter by the Respondents, the learned Counsels for the Writ Petitioners are unable to get along with the cases for final hearing. Thus, the respective learned Counsels are also facing agony in disposal of cases within a reasonable period of time. Such a practice can never be encouraged. (x) On account of not filing the Counter by the Respondents, the learned Counsels for the Writ Petitioners are unable to get along with the cases for final hearing. Thus, the respective learned Counsels are also facing agony in disposal of cases within a reasonable period of time. Considering the plights of the litigants and the difficulties being faced by the members of the Bar, this Court is of an opinion that the procedures to be followed and to be regulated, which is imminent on account of the large number of pendency of Writ Petitions before this Hon'ble High Court. On account of not filing the Counter Statements and not listing of Vacate Stay Petitions within the time stipulated, the cases are not listed and there is a scope for collusion by the Registry officials with the litigants in respect of listing of the matters in a routine manner, which may result in corrupt practices. 2. In order to provide an opportunity to the Registry of High Court of Madras, the Registrar General, High Court of Madras was impleaded as a party Respondent in the Writ Petition, enabling the Registrar to submit the present practices. 3. The Registrar General, High Court of Madras, submitted a Status Report on 26th September 2018, stating that the Rules of the High Court, Madras, Appellate Side was published in the Fort St. George Gazette Part V, Supplement dated 18.8.1965, in that Appendix IV deals with Rules to Regulate proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. Amendments were issued in the year 1965 incorporating Rule 3-A in the above Rule (P.Dis. 187/1965), which reads as follows: "3-A : Any Respondent, who intends to file a Counter Affidavit, shall, unless otherwise ordered, file it within three months from the date of service on him of notice of Rule nisi." 4. The subsequent Rules framed, regulating the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the year 2002 is kept in abeyance until further Orders. Thus, this Court need not consider the Rules, which is suspended until further orders. It is informed that the Rules regulating the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India issued in the year 1965 is in force as of now. 5. Thus, this Court need not consider the Rules, which is suspended until further orders. It is informed that the Rules regulating the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India issued in the year 1965 is in force as of now. 5. Even, in the absence of any such Rules, the Hon'ble High Court has to regulate the Proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, even independently in the interests of the institution as well as in the interests of Public at large. 6. Article 226, sub-clause (3) of the Constitution of India, which reads as under: "Where any party against whom an Interim Order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a Petition under Clause (1), without- (a) furnishing to such party copies of such Petition and all documents in support of the plea for such Interim Order; and (b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard makes an Application to the High Court for the vacation of such Order and furnishes a copy of such Application to the party in whose favour such Order has been made or the Counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the Application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the date on which the copy of such Application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards on which the High Court is open; and if the Application is not so disposed of, the Interim Order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the aid next day, stand vacated." 7. Thus, it is a Constitutional mandate that whenever a Petition to vacate the Interim Order is filed by the litigants, the same should be heard and disposed of within a period of two weeks. Even assuming, if the time limit fixed under the Constitution is directory in nature and cannot be construed as mandatory, this Court is of an opinion that the Principles of Reasonableness enunciated in the Constitution is to be adhered to, in such circumstances. Even assuming, if the time limit fixed under the Constitution is directory in nature and cannot be construed as mandatory, this Court is of an opinion that the Principles of Reasonableness enunciated in the Constitution is to be adhered to, in such circumstances. Thus, non-listing of Vacate Stay Petitions for three years or five years or more, to be considered as blatant violation of the Constitutional principles, its philosophies and ethos. Though the Constitution provides time limit for the disposal of the Vacate Stay Petitions, it is imminent to consider that at least the Vacate Stay Petitions are listed after numbering, before the Court concerned for hearing without delay. Thus, it would be the minimum expectation of the litigants in respect of the procedures to be followed for hearing of the cases. 8. The amended Civil Procedure Code also stipulates three months time limit for filing Written Statements in the Civil Suits. Outer time limit for filing of Written Statements are contemplated in the Code of Civil Procedure, it is highly warranted on the part of this Court to adopt the same or to follow the Rules regulating the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India issued in the year 1965, which is in force as of now. 9. Mr. R. Yashod Vardhan, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the High Court of Madras informed this Court that the Rules framed in the year 2002 is suspended until further orders and not in force. Thus, the Registry has to follow the Rules issued in the year 1965. In respect of certain questions raised by this Court, it is not clarified by the learned Senior Counsel, whether the Registry, High Court of Madras is following the Rules issued in the year 1965. However, this Court is able to realise that these Rules regulating the procedures are not been followed strictly and scrupulously by the Registry for the benefit of all the litigants as well as the respective learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties to Writ Petitions, at large. However, this Court is able to realise that these Rules regulating the procedures are not been followed strictly and scrupulously by the Registry for the benefit of all the litigants as well as the respective learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties to Writ Petitions, at large. Considering the pain and agony of the litigants, who all are waiting for long years and for an unspecified period to redress their grievances and considering the inconvenience to the respective learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the parties to the lis and, considering the factor that the learned Counsels are unable to get along with the cases on account on non-filing of Counter Statements by the Respondents, this Court is inclined to pass the following Orders: (i) The Registrar General, High Court of Madras is directed to implement Rule 3-A of the Rules to regulate Proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India issued in the year 1965 (P.Dis. 187/1965). (ii) The Registrar General, High Court of Madras is directed to incorporate the contents of the said Rule 3-A suitably in the Rule Nisi Notice, to be issued to the Respondents/litigants in all the Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with effect from 1st October 2018. (iii) The Registrar General, High Court of Madras is directed to issue instructions to the Registry, in the event of not filing the Counter Affidavits/Documents by the Respondents/litigants within the time limit of Three Months as stipulated in the above Rules, the litigants/Respondents shall explain the reasons for such delay in the Affidavits. (iv) The Registrar General, High Court of Madras is directed to scrutinize/process the Vacate Stay Petitions filed by the litigants within a period of two weeks from the date its filing. If the papers filed are improper, the same must be returned immediately by assigning reasons. (v) The Registrar General, High Court of Madras, is directed to issue Orders/Instructions/Circulars to all the Sections of the High Court of Madras to list the Vacate Stay Petitions within a period of two weeks from the date of numbering of the Vacate Stay Petitions before the appropriate Court. (v) The Registrar General, High Court of Madras, is directed to issue Orders/Instructions/Circulars to all the Sections of the High Court of Madras to list the Vacate Stay Petitions within a period of two weeks from the date of numbering of the Vacate Stay Petitions before the appropriate Court. (vi) The Registrar General, High Court of Madras is directed to issue Instructions clearly by stating that in the event of not listing the Vacate Stay Petitions within a period of two weeks from the date of numbering of the Vacate Stay Petitions, then suitable Disciplinary actions will be taken against the officials concerned. (vii) The Registrar General, High Court of Madras is directed to communicate this Order to the Additional Registrar General, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court for implementation. (viii) The Registrar General, High Court of Madras, is directed to implement the above Directions and report compliance on 5.10.2018. Post this matter on 5.10.2018 for further consideration.