K.P. BHANDARI, J. - (1.) Mr. M. I. Puri, practising Advocate of Punjab and Haryana High Court has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has filed the present petition in public interest litigation. He has averred in the writ petition that Judges of the High Court are entitled to staff cars according to Section 22-B of the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, as amended (for short the 'Act'). He has averred in the writ petition that staff cars placed at the disposal of the Judges of the High Court are old and are not dependable. The cars require replacement. The stand of the petitioner is that in discharge of the judicial functions, the High Court Judges are required to undertake journeys to far off places within the States of Punjab and Haryana. They are also to visit the State headquarters for presiding over the Lok Adalats. He has also averred that the staff cars placed at the disposal of the High Court Judges are not of adequate standard. Sometimes the cars are stranded on the road. He has further averred that the cars placed at the disposal of the High Court Judges should be of the same standard as are placed at the disposal of the Ministers of the State. He has also averred that the cars placed at the disposal of most of the Judges need replacement. It is also the stand of the petitioner in the writ petition that the security arrangement for the Judges of the High Court is not adequate.
(2.) Notice of the writ petition was issued to respondent Nos. 1 to 8. In reply to the notice, Registrar of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh has filed written statement on behalf of respondent No. 1 Written statement has also been filed on behalf of respondent No. 3. Union of India, respondent No. 2, has not put in appearance in spite of service of notice.
(3.) Registrar of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the written statement has stated that most of the cars provided to the High Court Judges are of 1987 model. As a result of constant use of these cars they have become unserviceable and have to be sent to the work-shop time and again for necessary repairs thereby causing a lot of inconvenience to the Judges. The Registrar has averred in the written statement that the matter regarding replacement of staff cars was referred to S. S. Sodhi, J. for examination and report. S. S. Dodhi, J. submitted his report. It was recommended in the report by S. S. Sodhi, J. that the High Court Judges should be treated at par with the Ministers of the two States of Punjab and Haryana. It was further recommended in the report that staff cars of the High Court Judges should be replaced after 80,000 kms. or 2/3 years whichever is earlier. These recommendations were adopted by the High Court in the Full Court Meeting. As a result of the decision of the Full Court, the Central Government as well as the Chandigarh Administration was moved for replacement of 18 staff cars, vide letter dated 1-2-1991. A condemnation board was constituted by the Chandigarh Administration, comprising of technical and mechanical members. The board inspected these cars on the spot and suggested premature condemnation of only 7 cars, even though all the 18 cars had already covered more than 80,000 kms. each. The Government of India as well as the Union Territory, Chandigarh was moved to convey the sanction of the replacement of the cars. Full information was given to the Government about the total mileage covered by the each car and total up-to-date expenditure incurred on each car. Anticipated cost of replacement of these cars was duly furnished to the Government of India vide letter dated 20-10-1992, for conveying its sanction but so far the Government of India has not given the sanction. It is also the stand in the written statement that recommendations made by the Full Court are in consonance with the spirit of the provisions of the law.;