- (1.) In the main writ petition petitioners allege an actionable inaction on the part of the Union Government in the matter of providing facilities to the Inquiry Committee constituted by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, after admitting a motion presented by 108 Members of that House for presentation of an address to the President for the removal of a Judge. Petitioners seek the issue of an appropriate writ or direction to the Government to act in aid and furtherance of the Speaker's decision and to provide requisite and necessary facilities to the Inquiry Committee to enable it discharge its statutory functions. There are also certain prayers __ said to be incidental to the main relief - to the effect that during the pendency of the proceedings of the Inquiry Committee the Judge be restrained from discharging judicial functions.
(2.) The writ petition is being argued. Several issues as to the Jurisdiction of the Court to decide matters said to fall within the exclusive parliamentary area; questions of justiciability and the like are raised in defence and are under serious debate.
(3.) In the midst of the hearing of the writ-petition, petitioners have come-up with the present application - I.A. No.4 of 1991 - seeking an interim direction that the Registry of this Court be directed not to list matters of those Advocates-on -record and of the parties who do not wish to have their matters heard and decided by the learned Judge, before a bench in which the learned Judge is a member.;