- (1.) Mr. Upadhyay, learned Counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments, wants to delete the names of the Judicial Officers from the array of the parties. He is al- lowed to do so.
(2.) This public interest litigation has been filed inter alia on the ground that some orders have been passed by the officers of the subordinate judiciary which are not in accordance with law, therefore justice is not being imparted to the litigants at large in State of Rajasthan. Accordingly a direction has been sought against the officers of the sub- ordinate judiciary in this connection. Regarding maintainability of the writ petition, it has been prayed that it is the duty of the judicial officers to decide the cases in accordance with law, but they failed to decide to such matters in accordance with law and therefore the petitioners has approached this Court by filing the public interest litigation. Judicial orders passed by the officers of the subordinate judiciary are revisable or appealable and nothing had been placed on record to show that whether any appeal or revision has been filed. However we enquired from the Counsel that whether any complaint has been lodged at the administrative level against the officers of the subordinate judiciary. We were informed that no such complaint has been filed. It would be open for the learned Counsel to file complaint but he stated that he does not want to file any such complaint.
(3.) No doubt, every judicial officer of the subordinate judiciary is required to decide the matter in accordance with law. However for seeking such relief as prayed in the petition, we are of the considered opinion that the public interest litigation is not maintainable. We make it open for the petitioner to bring all such grievances before the appropriate authority so as to redressal of his grievances.;