JUDGMENT : The plea of the petitioners certainly cannot be found fault with. They are an Association of Lawyers and Advocates practicing before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT) and seek that said Tribunal be directed to implement the 'Hybrid Mode' of hearing of cases, as stipulated by the Honourable Supreme Court from time to time. 2. Sri. Elvin Peter P.J. - learned counsel for the petitioners, vehemently argued that, with the advent of technology and in the light of the specific directions of the Honourable Supreme Court, electronic methods for disposal of matters cannot be shied away from being implemented for the 'KAT'; and that, for this purpose, respondents 2 and 3 have a definite role to play. He pointed out that, in fact, his clients have already preferred Exts.P6 and P7 representations before respondents 2 and 3 respectively; and sought that said Authorities be directed to act upon it, in consultation with the Honourable Chairman of the 'KAT', without any avoidable delay. 3. Pertinently, Sri. P. Gopal – learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent – 'KAT', submitted that his client is also fully aware of the imperativeness of introducing 'Hybrid Mode' of case disposal in the said Tribunal, but that they cannot act on their own, except with the support and assistance of respondents 2 and 3 and such other stake holders of the Government of Kerala. He submitted that, therefore, he leaves to this Court to issue appropriate orders, particularly because, any action as required by the petitioners can be initiated and completed only with the full backing from the State of Kerala and its functionaries. 4. Sri. Sunil Kumar Kuriakose – learned Government Pleader, also affirmed that it is the intent of the Government of Kerala to ensure that all Courts, including the 'KAT', operating in the State are given full assistance and support for the purpose of adopting technology, as is now mandatorily required to be done by the Honourable Supreme Court. He submitted that, therefore, if this Court is so inclined respondents 2 and 3 or such other Competent Authority of the Government, are willing to consult the Honourable Chairman of the KAT and take a decision on the petitioners' plea, as impelled in Exts.P6 and P7, without any avoidable delay. 5. He submitted that, therefore, if this Court is so inclined respondents 2 and 3 or such other Competent Authority of the Government, are willing to consult the Honourable Chairman of the KAT and take a decision on the petitioners' plea, as impelled in Exts.P6 and P7, without any avoidable delay. 5. There can be no doubt, going by the afore rival positions – which, in fact, are not rival but virtually supplementing each other – that adoption of technology by Courts is not one as a matter of choice, but is now more an obligation, going by the requirements of time and the directions of the Honourable Supreme Court. However, as rightly submitted by Sri. P. Gopal, 'KAT' cannot take a decision on their own unilaterally, since the support for establishment of the systems and its running, will certainly have to be borne and offered by the Government of Kerala at the appropriate level. 6. Axiomatically, it is now for respondents 2 and 3 or such other Competent Authority of the Government of Kerala, to immediately consult the Honourable Chairman of the 'KAT' and take a decision on the request of the petitioners, as projected in Exts.P6 and P7. I am certain that this should be done without any avoidable delay. In the afore circumstances, I allow this Writ Petition with the following directions : (I)(a) Respondents 2 and 3 or such other Competent Authority of the Government will immediately consult the Honourable Chairman of the KAT; and, based on the said deliberations, take a decision on Exts.P6 and P7 representations of the petitioners, after affording the second among them an opportunity of being heard. (b) The afore exercise shall be completed by the 1st respondent – State of Kerala, through the respondents 2 and 3 or such other Competent Authority, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (II) On the afore consultation being completed and apposite decisions taken by the respondents on Exts.P6 and P7, Competent Authority of the 1st respondent – State of Kerala shall ensure that all necessary infrastructure and facilities for the 'KAT' to embrace the technology for its hearing and disposal of cases, shall be put in place as expeditiously as is possible, but within a time frame to be fixed by its Honourable Chairman.