All India Judges Asson. and Others Vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

1,675 paragraphs · 9,436 words

In Re.: Infrastructure In Subordinate Judiciary:

Introduction:

Administration of justice, constitution and organization of all courts, except Supreme Court and High Courts, was originally included in the State List under Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. However, by Forty-second [Amendment] Act, 1976, it has been brought in the Concurrent List vide Entry 11A.

In the Report of Justice Shetty Commission, it has been highlighted that courts in Mofussil places are located in dilapidated buildings with inadequate furniture for Judges or lawyers or litigants. The old rickety furniture is at site to see even today in Mofussil courts. Such courts, according to the Report of Justice Shetty Commission, have become pathetic site to see. The most important observation in the Report is that the Union Government has included the infrastructure of the courts as "planned item" to enable them to provide half of the expenditure required for that purpose and the other half has to be contributed by the State.

At this stage, it may be stated that the Central Sponsored Scheme of the Central Government has a rule of sliding down which results in reduction of the funding from the Centre as the said funding is made dependant upon the State's funding in a given year. One more aspect which needs to be mentioned is that, subject to various modifications recorded in the judgment dated 21st March, 2002, all other recommendations of Justice Shetty Commission were accepted by this Court in this case [Para 37 of All India Judges Association and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, ]. Earlier, in the judgment in this case reported in All India Judges' Association and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, , paragraph 43 reads as under:

We now understand that the judiciary has been included as a plan subject by the Planning commission. If this is so, the construction of adequate number of houses with the necessary facilities should be given the top priority being the most primary requirement of the Judges at any place.... In order to ensure that the quarters constructed for the judicial officers are of proper dimension and with adequate number of rooms, their future construction should be made in consultation with and under the supervision of the respective High Court and the High Court should take adequate interest in their construction.

Till today, paragraph 43, afore-quoted, has remained a dream. It now needs to be enforced and, therefore, this Court has decided to sit on every Monday in the afternoon session to re-visit the infrastructural problems faced by the Subordinate Courts. It is brought to our notice that fines and costs running into crores deposited in State Government Accounts are not spent for the infrastructure of the Courts. We want these amounts to be earmarked for infrastructure of the subordinate judiciary in each State. Even the Court fees collected is not deployed for the infrastructure of the judiciary. We want the Central Government and the State Governments to cooperate. We want these funds, which are internally generated, to be deployed for the infrastructure of the subordinate judiciary so that there is less dependency on the Central Sponsored Schemes. We also want the Government to consider amending the Court Fees Act in specific areas like Negotiable Instruments Act, Arbitration Act, etc.

Accordingly, we hereby direct the Report dated 12th July, 2010, to be registered by the Registry as an Interlocutory Application. The respondents in the Interlocutory Application will be the State Governments through their respective Chief Secretaries, Union Territories through their Administrators, High Courts through their Registrar Generals, Union of India through Department of Justice, and, lastly, the Advocate General of each State. In addition, we want the Advocate General of each State to be co-opted in the State Committee, which is referred to in the Report. The Report indicates not only the requirement of the subordinate judiciary but also indicates the revenue raising measures as also the state of affairs in various States by way of illustrations as far as infrastructural problems are concerned.

Issue notice.

The three Committees referred to in the Interlocutory Application shall stand constituted within four weeks. They shall supply the inputs in Formats [Annexures I to L annexed to the Report] to the Monitoring Committee which in turn will place it before this Court on the next occasion.

We make it clear that copy of this interlocutory application will be brought to the notice of the Chief Justice of each of the High Court in the Country by their respective Registrar Generals of the Courts.

We also make it clear that if any application is made by Standing counsel representing a particular High Court or State Government or Union Territory, the Registry will give them a copy of this Interlocutory Application without any charges. In addition, the said Report should be placed on the Supreme Court of India Website.

10.

Place this Interlocutory Application on 16th August, 2010.

INDEX

S. No.

Description

Page Nos.

Cause Title

A- H

1-A

I.A. (Report dated 12.7.2010 of Secretary General, Supreme Court of India)

1-11

Letter D.O.No. J-11017/6/2010-JR dated 28.5.2010 from Director (HC & J) Ministry of Law & Justice regarding - central sponsored scheme and eleventh plan. (Annexure. A)

12-13

Letter No. J-11017/5/2010-JR dated 18.5.2010 from Joint Secretary (Justice) Ministry of Law & Justice - regarding tentative allocation in 2010-11 Annexures. (Annexure. B)

14-16

Letter No. J-11017/6/2010-JR dated 20.5.2010 from Joint Secretary, Department of Justice with performa - seeking information regarding infrastructure. (Annexure. C)

17-18

Letter dated 9.7.2010 sent by Secretary General to Joint Secretary, Department of Justice - seeking consolidated information. (Annexure. D)

Consolidated information on infrastructure as compiled by Department of Justice. (Annexure. E)

Letter from Advocate Mr. A.T.M. Sampath, Dated 18.5.2010 calling information in format. (Annexure. F)

21-24

Letter from Advocate Mr. ATM Sampath to Secretary General forwarding charts of information collected. (Annexure. G)

25-26

Chart regarding Generators/Invertors as on 28.2.2010. (Annexure. H)

27-28

10.

Format-A-District Committee regarding Court Buildings (Annexure. I)

11.

Format-B - State Committee regarding Court Buildings (Annexure. J)

12.

Format-C - District Committee - Residential Premises (Annexure. K)

13.

Format-D - State Committee - Residential Premises (Annexure. L)

IN RE: REPORT WITH REFERENCE TO INFRASTRUCTURE IN SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY

Union of India, Through The Secretary, Department of Justice, Jaisalmer House, New Delhi.

State of Arunachal Pradesh, Through The Chief Secretary, Itanagar (Arunalchal Pradesh)

State of Andhra Pradesh, Through The Chief Secretary, Hyderabad (A.P)

State of assam, through the chief secretary, guwahati, assam.

State of Bihar, Through The Chief Secretary, Patna (Bihar).

State of Chhatisgarh Through The Chief Secretary, Raipur.

State of Gujarat, Through The Chief Secretary, Gandhinagar (Gujarat).

State of Haryana Through The Chief Secretary, Chandigarh.

State of Himachal Pradesh, Through The Chief Secretary, Shimla (H.P.)

10.

State of Jammu And Kashmir, Through The Chief Secretary, Srinagar (J & K).

11.

Stae of Jharkhand, Through The Chief Secretary, Ranchi.

12.

State of Karnataka, Through The Chief Secretary, Bangalore (Karnataka).

13.

State of Kerala, Through The Chief Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram.

14.

State of Madhya Pradesh, Through The Chief Secretary, Bhopal (M.P.)

15.

State of Maharashtra, Through The Chief Secretary, Mumbai.

16.

State of Manipur, Through The Chief Secretary, Imphal (Manipur).

17.

State of Meghalaya, Through The Chief Secretary, Shillong (Meghalaya).

18.

State of Mizoram, Through The Chief Secretary, Aizwal, Mizoram.

19.

State of Nagaland, Through The Chief Secretary, Kohima (Nagaland).

20.

State of Orrisa, Through The Chief Secretary, Bhubaneswar (Orissa).

21.

State of Punjab, Through The Chief Secretary, Chandigarh.

22.

State of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Secretary, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

23.

State of Sikkim, Through The Chief Secretary, Gangtok, (Sikkim).

24.

State of Tamil Nadu, Through The Chief Secretary, Chennai, (Tamil Nadu).

25.

State of Tripura, Through The Chief Secretary, Agartala (Tripura).

26.

State of Uttar Pradesh, Through The Chief Secretary, Lucknow (U.P.).

27.

State of Uttarakhand Through The Chief Secretary, Dehradun.

28.

State of West Bengal, Through The Chief Secretary, Kolkata (West Bengal).

29.

State of Nct of Delhi, Through The Chief Secretary, New Delhi.

30.

State of Goa, Through The Chief Secretary, Panji (Goa).

31.

Union Territory of Andaman & Nicobar Island, Through The Chief Secretary, Port Blair.

32.

Union Territory of Chandigarh, Through The Home Secretary, Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh.

33.

Union Territory of Daman & Diu And Dadra And Nagar Haveli, Through The Administrator.

34.

Union Territory of Pondicherry, Through The Chief Secretary, Pondicherry Administration, Pondicherry.

35.

Union Territory of Lakshadweep, Through The Administrator, Lakshadweep Administration, Kavaratti.

36.

The High Court of Allahabad, Through The Registrar General, Allahabad, U.P.-211001

37.

The High Court of Allahabad, Through The Registrar, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow.

38.

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Through The Registrar General, Hyderabad-500266

39.

The High Court of Bombay, Through The Registrar General, Mumbai-400032

40.

The High Court of Bombay, Through The Registrar, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur-440001

41.

The High Court of Bombay, Through The Registrar, Aurangabad Bench, Aurangabad-431005

42.

The High Court of Bombay, Through The Registrar, Goa (Panaji) Bench, Goa-403 001.

43.

The High Court of Calcutta, Through The Registrar General, Kolkata-700001

44.

The High Court of Calcutta, Through The Registrar, Circuit Bench At Andaman & Nicobar Islands Port Blair-744101

45.

The High Court of Chhattisgarh, Through The Registrar General, Bilaspur-795001

46.

The High Court of Delhi, Through The Registrar General, New Delhi-110003

47.

The High Court of Guwahati, Through The Registrar General, Guwahati-781001

48.

The High Court of Guwahati, Through The Registrar, Imphal Bench, Imphal.

49.

The High Court of Guwahati, Through The Registrar, Kohima Bench, Kohima.

50.

The High Court of Guwahati, Through The Registrar, Agartala Bench, Agartala.

51.

The High Court of Guwahati, Through The Registrar, Aizwal Bench, Aizwal.

52.

High Court of Guwahati, Through The Registrar, Shillong Bench, Shillong.

53.

The High Court of Guwahati, Through The Deputy Registrar, Itanagar Bench, Itanagar.

54.

The High Court of Gujarat, Through The Registrar General, Ahmedabad.

55.

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Through The Registrar General, Shimla-171001

56.

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir, Through The Registrar General, Srinagar-190001

57.

The High Court of Jharkhand, Through The Registrar General, Ranchi-834033

58.

The High Court of Karnataka, Through The Registrar General, Bangalore-560001

59.

The High Court of Kerala, Through The Registrar General, Ernakulam (Kochi)-682031

60.

The High Court of Madras, Through The Registrar General, Chennai-600104

61.

High Court of Madras, Through The Registrar, Madurai Bench, Madurai.

62.

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Through The Registrar General, Jabalpur-482001

63.

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Through The Registrar, Indore Bench, Indore-452001

64.

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Through The Registrar, Gwalior Bench, Gwalior-452001

65.

The High Court of Orissa, Through The Registrar General, Cuttack-753002

66.

The High Court of Patna, Through The Registrar General, Bihar-800001

67.

The High Court of Punjab And Haryana, Through The Registrar General, Chandigarh-160001

68.

The High Court of Rajasthan, Through The Registrar General, Jodhpur-342001

69.

The High Court of Rajasthan, Through The Registrar, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur.

70.

The High Court of Sikkim, Through The Registrar General Gangtok.

71.

The High Court of Uttarakhand, Through The Registrar General, Nainital.

72.

The Advocate General, The Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar (Arunalchal Pradesh)

73.

The Advocate General, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (A.P)

74.

The Advocate General, Government of Assam, Guwahati, Assam.

75.

The Advocate General, Government of Bihar, Patna (Bihar).

76.

The Advocate General, Govt. of Chhatisgarh, Raipur.

77.

The Advocate General, Government of Gujarat, Gandhinagar (Gujarat).

78.

The Advocate General, Government of Haryana, Chandigarh.

79.

The Advocate General, Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla (H.P.)

80.

The Advocate General, Government of Jammu And Kashmir, Srinagar (J & K)

81.

The Advocate General, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

82.

The Advocate General, Government of Karnataka, Bangalore (Karnataka).

83.

The Advocate General, Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram.

84.

The Advocate General, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal (M.P.)

85.

The Advocate General Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai.

86.

The Advocate General, Government of Manipur, Imphal (Manipur).

87.

The Advocate General, Government of Meghalaya, Shillong (Meghalaya).

88.

The Advocate General, Government of Mizoram, Aizwal, Mizoram.

89.

The Advocate General, Government of Nagaland, Kohima (Nagaland).

90.

The Advocate General, Government of Orrisa, Bhubaneswar (Orissa).

91.

The Advocate General, Government of Punjab, Chandigarh.

92.

The Advocate General, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

93.

The Advocate General, Government of Sikkim, Gangtok, (Sikkim).

94.

The Advocate General, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai, (Tamil Nadu).

95.

The Advocate General, Government of Tripura, Agartala (Tripura).

96.

The Advocate General, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow (U.P.).

97.

The Advocate General, Govt. of Uttarakhand, Dehradun.

98.

The Advocate General, Government of West Bengal, Kolkata (West Bengal).

99.

The Advocate General, Govt. of Nct Delhi, New Delhi.

100.

The Advocate General, Govt. of Goa, Panji (Goa).... Respondents

REPORT

In view of directions, present report is submitted with regard to infrastructure in the subordinate judiciary. It is necessary to consider the working conditions of subordinate judiciary in Courts and Residential premises.

In different States, as regards infrastructure of courts and residential premises, judicial officers appear to be working in different conditions.

In this regard, reference needs to be made to the matter of "All India Judge's Association v. Union of India" (W.P. No. 1022/1989). In Para 4 of the Judgment dated 13.11.1991 reported in All India Judges' Association Vs. Union of India and others, , Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the fact that one of the reliefs claimed in the matter was regarding Residential Accommodation to be provided to every Judicial Officer. In para 34 of the Judgment, Hon'ble Court directed that provision of official residence for every Judicial Officer will be made mandatory. Hon'ble Court was aware of the cases where Rural Courts were located in the building belonging to a Lawyer or a Client. In para 37 of the Judgment Hon'ble Court observed that providing adequate residential accommodation should be considered as a priority. It was directed that as a long term measure, Government accommodation should be constructed to meet the need of the Judicial Officers at their respective stations. Para 63 (vi) summarised the directions to say that residential accommodation to every Judicial Officer has to be provided.

At the time of Review, in Para 43 All India Judges' Association and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, , Hon'ble Court directed that construction of adequate number of houses with the necessary facilities should be given top priority being the most primary requirement of Judges at any place.

In the above matter, vide Judgment dated 21st March, 2002, [in All India Judges Association and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, ], Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in para 37 that subject to the various modifications in the Judgment, all other recommendations of the Shetty Commission are accepted. Thus, para 16.31 of Justice Shetty Commission's report was accepted which required that each State must prepare a Five Year Plan to improve the existing infrastructure of Courts, construction of new Courts, providing furniture, fixtures, library etc., to all Courts and for construction of Quarters for all Judicial Officers. Central Government was directed to share the half of the annual expenditure on Subordinate Courts and quarters for Judicial Officers.

It is not only necessary to consider whether sufficient provision for residential accommodation has been made for judicial officers but also whether sufficient and duly furnished Court premises befitting the status and nature of work have been made available to the judicial officers in order to enable them to discharge their duties in humane conditions. It is common knowledge that the Courts have been functioning in the premises which are in dilapidated conditions lacking basic amenities. At many places, Court premises have been housed in rented accommodations, which, to say the least, is highly undesirable as these may be owned either by an advocate or a litigant and can be a source of embarrassment to judicial officers.

Central Sponsored Scheme

Since 1993-1994, the Central Government has been implementing Centrally Sponsored Scheme for the development of infrastructural facilities for the Judiciary by way of matching grant to be accorded by State Government. The roadmap prepared for providing infrastructural facilities has not reached it's logical end as many Courts are still functioning in rented premises with insufficient space and even in dilapidated structures sans basic minimal amenities. The delay, it seems, in the completion of projects is on account of paucity of funds. Apart from the Court premises, sufficient residential accommodation has not been made available to judicial officers.

The Union Government and the State Governments are duty bound to provide infrastructure commensurating with the functioning of the Courts with all requisite facilities. The State Governments are required to provide residential accommodation befitting the status of a judicial officer. Prima facie, it appears that there is lackadaisical approach on the part of the authorities in implementing the Centrally Sponsored Scheme and appropriating the funds in a proper manner.

Infrastructure Needs

Information was sought from Department of Justice, Ministry of Law & Justice regarding infrastructure needs of court buildings of the subordinate judiciary and the Director has sent Letter No. D.O. J-11017/6/2010 - JR dated 28th May, 2010 (Annexure - 'A'). The letter refers to the implementation of the Centrally Sponsored Scheme for development of infrastructure facilities for the subordinate judiciary since 1993-94. It appears that Rs. 1102.18 Crores have been provided as central assistance to the States and the Union Territories upto 31.3.2010. Before the commencement of the 11th Plan, Department of Justice had made an assessment, as a Ten Year Perspective Plan of the requirement of the construction of court buildings and residential accommodation of the States and the Union Territories. The Department appears to have estimated that a central assistance of Rs. 1550 crores was required to be provided to the States for the 11th plan period through domestic budgetary support. The 11th plan outlay, however, is Rs. 701.08 crores out of which Rs. 411.97 crores have been provided to the States/Union Territories in the first three years of the plan period. The letter shows that during the implementation of the scheme, requests have been received for enhanced central assistance from number of states for construction of various courts and residential accommodation for Judges. The estimated additional requirement of funds was Rs. 1893.35 crores as per the letter dated 28th May, 2010 (Annex. 'A').

Current Year Allocation

Letter No. J-11017/5/2010 - JR dated 18th May, 2010 (Annexure - 'B') shows that the Department of Justice has made tentative allocations of funds under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme for development of infrastructure facilities for the judiciary to the extent of 111 crores.

Plan for Development

It appears that the Department of Justice sent Letter No. J-11017/6/2010 -JR dated May 20, 2010 (Annexure -'C') to plan for Development with format for submitting information needs of District and Subordinate Courts in the country. In response to my letter dated July 9, 2010 (Annexure -'D'), the Learned Joint Secretary has sent a chart (Annexure -'E') of infrastructure needs. It shows that the total estimated cost of infrastructure needs of District and subordinate courts now calculated is of Rs. 7,077 crores (This is excluding Allahabad, Delhi and J & K, which High Courts have not sent the information). Rs. 2162 crores are required in 2010-11 itself.

Conditions of Courts

10.

Advocate Mr. A.T.M. Sampath sent letter dated 18th May, 2010 (Annexure -'F') to various associations of judicial officers. In the letter, it is mentioned with reference to the matter of "Maharashtra Co-operative Court Bar Association v. State of Maharashtra" (SLP No. 5221-5222 of 2009) that it had come up for hearing before your Lordship, Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India. It is stated that your Lordship asked the Amicus Curiae Mr. F.S. Nariman to collect detailed statewise information regarding the existing infrastructure of judicial court buildings and residences in order to effectively implement Justice Shetty Commission recommendations in this context, duly accepted by the Supreme Court. The Learned Amicus Curiae through Mr. A.T.M. Sampath, annexed Informatory Performa calling various informations regarding the infrastructure and facilities and conditions in which the courts were functioning from the Associations. Information was sought regarding water and electricity to the court rooms and facilities for litigants. Advocate Mr. A.T.M. Sampath has on 9.7.2010 give a letter (Annexure -'G') which shows that the associations and Registrars of High Courts of Bombay, Allahabad, Kerala, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Sikkim. Aizwal Bench and Goa Bench have sent response to informatory performa as to the infrastructure facilities of judicial court buildings and residences of Judges. The Learned Amicus Curiae has taken great pains to get charts prepared incorporating information received from the said High Courts. The specimen copy of one of such charts has been submitted and charts of the courts for the State of Maharashtra and remaining seven states will be prepared subject to directions of Lordships. Shri A.T.M. Sampath has requested that the letter be circulated to your Lordship and Hon'ble Judges sitting with your Lordship on 12.7.2010. The letter and the enclosures are being placed before the Hon'ble Court.

11.

The performa forwarded by the Learned Amicus Curiae discloses the poor conditions of the existing infrastructure. At places, there are poor toilet facilities; there are difficulties regarding non availability or poor conditions of libraries; electric supply and even drinking water problems are there. The chart shows inadequate facilities for litigants to be there.

Generators

12.

The information sent by Learned Amicus Curiae shows that at many places, there are problems regarding electricity supply to the courts. Registry had also called for information from different High Courts, inter alia, regarding Generators and Invertors. The information received has been compiled. The same is at Annexure -'H' It shows that as on 28.2.2010, out of 2903 subordinate court complexes, only 562 have got generators. Against working strength of 13996 Judicial Officers in subordinate judiciary on 28.2.2010, invertors were available with only 693 Judicial Officers at their residences. The conditions in which the courts are functioning can easily be imagined.

Monitoring & Development of Infrastructure

13.

In Annexure -'E', Department of Justice has calculated requirement of Rs. 2162 crores for 2010-11. Registry has prepared Formats A to D (Annexure - T to 'L' at pages 29-32) in case, micro information is required to be called from all the corners of the country to monitor developments. In case, it is felt that specific and complete requirements are required to be compiled and acted upon the formats can be useful.

14.

Following Committees in three tiers may be necessary, if monitoring is felt to be necessary:

(i) At the District level, a District Committee headed by Principal District Judges be constituted of the following:

Principal District Judge

District Magistrate / Collector

Executive Engineer, PWD

Chief Architect / Deputy Architect (By whatever designation called)

(ii) At State level, a State Committee headed by Chief Secretary be constituted of the following:

Chief Secretary

Registrar General of the High Court

Principal Law Secretary (or Home Secretary as the case may be) (Member-Secretary)

Chief Engineer (State PWD)

Principal Secretary, PWD

Chief Architect

Principal Secretary (Finance)

Principal Secretary (Planning)

(Union Territories Administrators will similarly constitute committees to be referred here as State Committee for convenience.)

(iii) At Centre level, a Monitoring Committee headed by Additional Secretary, Department of Justice be constituted of the following:

Additional Secretary, Department of Justice

Registrar General, High Court of Delhi

Joint Secretary, J-II

Director / Deputy Financial Adviser

DDG, CPWD

Director, HC & J (Member-Secretary)

The Committee at District level can be asked to submit requisite informations in the performa Formats A & C (at pages 29 & 31) to the State Committee and the State Committee can consider the status of various projects and, in case of delay, the State Committee can ensure expeditious steps to be taken by all concerned authorities to complete the projects. The State Committee should compile the information in Formats B & D (at pages 30 & 32) and submit the same along with soft copy to the Monitoring Committee. The Monitoring Committee can suitably consolidate the information, so received or take up the matters statewise for follow up actions. It appears necessary that such committees are constituted for getting the Status Report as on date which may be specified. The State Committees should be asked to monitor the progress and after lapse of some period, the status of the various projects and constructions can be updated in the formats to see if due progress is being made or not.

Infrastructure

15.

Revenue Raising

i) Utilizing costs, fines and Court Fees by Judiciary

It is apparent that a lot of planning and revenue is required. Central Government and State Governments are bound to make available the necessary resources. In fact, Judiciary contributes lot of revenue to the State by way of Court Fees, Costs, and Fines.

It is necessary to create separate "Infrastructure Fund" Head of Account, under control of respective High Courts or "Special Purpose Vehicles" where the Costs, Court Fees and Fines imposed by the High Courts and Subordinate Courts could be deposited and High Court or SPV (as the case may be) should be able to allot funds to State Judiciary mainly for the purpose of construction and maintenance of Court buildings, Judicial quarters, furnishings, Computerization, Generators and other welfare measures for Subordinate Judiciary, Judicial Officers, and Staff. Development of Court Infrastructure will benefit the Bar and Litigants also as they will have access to better premises with amenities that will aid giving faster justice.

Costs and fine imposed by Supreme Court can be deposited to such account for the State Concerned.

Mere creation of such funds should not be the reason for the State Governments to avoid responsibility towards administration of justice and they should be required to continue to provide funds for these facilities to State Judiciary.

If SPV is created, Monitoring Committee can be part of it or assist the SPV.

ii) Rationalizing Court Fees Acts.

To generate revenue, Court Fees Acts applicable need to be rationalized by concerned Governments so that balance is struck between Welfare State measures on one side and Commerce on the other. Regulatory matters, arbitration matters and matters like Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, need reconsideration. It is common knowledge that the courts of Magistrates are almost getting crushed under the weight of Section 138 of N.I. Act, 1881 in urban areas. These matters consume a lot of time and energy and are blocking litigation of all other natures. Still, shockingly, steps have not been taken by many States to rationalize the Court Fees Acts, e.g., in Delhi, the court fee for a complaint u/s 138 of N.I. Act is just Rs. 1.25 paise.

Another instance is Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Under this section, before or during arbitral proceedings, court can be moved for interim measures. Applications under this provision also consume considerable time and energy. The same can be brought in the district courts and important reliefs can be availed of by the parties. However, as per information received from High Court of Delhi [Letter No. 8575/1 dated 29.5.2010], the court fee for "OMP" [Other Miscellaneous Petition] u/s 9, is just Rs. 20/-.

The Court Fees Act, 1870, still refers to Proper Fee in Schedule I in terms of "annas". It is necessary that the Central Government and the State Governments should rationalize the court fees applicable especially regarding commercial litigations.

This report is submitted for further orders as may be deemed fit.

Annexures - A to L as per Index

Dear Shri Cheema

Kindly refer to your letter dated May 20, 2010 to Shri Ramesh Abhishek, regarding infrastructure needs of court buildings of the subordinate judiciary, a copy of which was faxed to me by your office today.

As you are aware the Central Government is implementing a Centrally Sponsored Plan scheme for the development infrastructure facilities for the judiciary since 1993-94 under which central assistance is provided to the States and the Union Territories to augment their resources for the development of infrastructure (construction of court buildings and residential accommodation for judicial officers). Rs1102.18 crore has been provided as central assistance to the States and the Union Territories up to 31.3.2010 since the inception of the scheme.

Before the commencement of the Eleventh Plan this Department had made an assessment, as a Ten Year Perspective Plan, of the requirement of construction of court buildings and residential accommodation of the States and UTs. This assessment, which was done in the middle of 2006 was based on information furnished by the States over a period of 2004-05 to 2005-06.

3.1 The projected requirement of construction was as follows:

Building

1st 2 year

2nd 2 year

3rd 2 year

4th 2 year

5th 2 year

Total

No. of courts

1977

1816

905

695

567

5960

No. of residences

3910

2324

1129

970

930

9163

3.2 The cost estimate projected by the States was:

(Rs. in crore)

For 1st '2 year'

For 2nd year' '2

For 3rd '2 year'

For 4th '2 year'

For 5th '2 year'

1717.24

779.21

601.35

494.20

432.26

TOTAL Rs. 4024.6 crore

3.3 For the purposes of working out the outlay for the Eleventh Plan, the projections of the States for the first two "two year periods" in total and half of the third "two year period" were taken into account. In addition, the requests that had separately been received from the States for their construction requirements were taken cognizance of and, this Department estimated that a central assistance of Rs. 1550 crore was required to be provided to the States over the Eleventh Plan period through Domestic Budgetary Support.

The Eleventh Plan outlay, however, is Rs. 701.08 crore out of which Rs. 411.97 crore has been provided to the States / UTs in the first three years of the Plan period.

During the implementation of the scheme in the Plan period, requests have been received for enhanced central assistance from a number of States for construction of various courts (including High Courts in the States of Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh) and residential accommodation for Judges. The estimated additional requirement of funds is Rs. 1893.35 crore.

The additional requirements indicated by the States suggest that the infrastructure needs of the States for construction of district and subordinate courts needs to be assessed afresh. Registrar Generals of all High Courts have therefore been requested vide this Department's letter of even number dated 20th May 2010 to indicate by 31.5.2010 their infrastructure needs both for the existing court buildings and for new constructions envisaged and the fund requirement over the five year period 2010-11 to 2014-15 for such construction.

We expect the information to be received shortly. As soon as the information is received we shall be getting back to you.

The Central Government does not provide any Non Plan funds to the States for construction of courts, etc. However, for the Fast Track Court assistance was provided to the States under Non Plan for meeting the non-recurring expenditure for the year 2005-06 and 2006-07 only when Rs. 25.01 crore and 25.46 crore respectively was provided.

It may also be mentioned that the Central Government has decided to provide central assistance under Plan to the States for meeting the cost of establishing Gram Nyayalayas. The central assistance is being provided at the rate of Rs. 18 lakhs per Gram Nyayalaya.

With regards,

Yours sincerely, (S.B.BISWAS)

Shri A.I.S. Cheema, Secretary General, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi.

No. J-11017/5/2010-JR Government of India Ministry of Law and Justice Department of Justice ******

Jaisalmer House, Mansingh Road New Delhi-110011 Dated: 18th May, 2010

Law Secretaries / Home Secretaries State Govts. / UT Administrations (Other than Chhatisgarh, Karnataka, Meghalaya, Nagaland and Tripura)

Subject: Tentative allocations of funds under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme for development of Infrastructure facilities for the judiciary - intimation thereof.

Sir,

The Department of Justice is implementing a Centrally Sponsored Scheme for development of infrastructure facilities for the judiciary to augment the resources of the State Governments / UT administrations. The scheme covers the constructions of court buildings and the residential accommodation of Judges and Judicial Officers, covering both the High Court and the subordinate courts, to facilitate better delivery of justice. The scheme also covers construction of a separate room in the court for housing the computer server and the Judicial Service Centre.

The expenditure under this scheme is shared equally between the Centre and the State Governments. The States are, however free to spend additional amounts as per their needs. The Union Territories are not required to contribute matching share.

The tentative allocation made for various States for the year 2010-11 is enclosed as Annexure I. The releases, however, can be made only after receipt of Utilisation Certificate for the releases made in previous years, including matching State's share. The details of pending UCs in respect of Central share is enclosed as Annexure II.

In order to enable the Department to release funds to your State / UTs as per tentative allocation for the year 2010-11, you are requested to furnish Utilisation Certificate pending in respect of your State / UT as per details given in Annexure II.

Yours faithfully (Ramesh Abhishek) Joint Secretary (Justice)

Copy to:

(1) Registrar Generals of all High Courts except Chhatisgarh, Karnataka and Guwahati.

(2) Secretary General, Supreme Court of India

(ANNEXURE-I)

TENTATIVE ALLOCATION FOR 2010-11 UNDER CSS SCHEME FOR DEVELOPMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES FOR THE JUDICIARY

(Rs. in crore)

Sl. No

States

Tentative allocation 2010-11 (with family courts)

(1)

(2)

(10)

Other than NE States

Andhra Pradesh

5.70

Bihar

8.80

Chhatisgarh

0.00

Goa

1.93

Gujarat

8.34

Haryana

1.50

Himachal Pradesh

1.47

Jammu & Kashmir

1.44

Jharkhand

6.55

Karnataka

0.00

Kerala

2.06

Madhya Pradesh

1.06

Maharashtra

10.23

Orissa

2.73

Punjab

2.92

Rajasthan

7.41

Tamilnadu

3.37

Uttar Pradesh

7.38

Uttarakhand

1.72

West Bengal

8.42

Total (For other than NE State

83.00

North Eastern States

Arunachal Pradesh

0.47

Assam

10.54

Manipur

1.42

Meghalaya

0.00

Mijoram

1.15

Nagaland

0.00

Sikkim

2.42

Tripura

0.00

Total (For NE States)

16.00

UTs with Legislature

6.00

Utswithout Legislature

6.00

Grand Total (CSS)

111.00

(ANNEXURE-II)

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ***

CENTRALLY SPONSORED SCHEME FOR DEVELOPMENT OF INFRASTRUCURE FACILITIES FOR THE JUDICIARY STATE/UT-WISE UC's PENDING IN RESPECT OF CENTRAL SHARE

(As on 18.5.2010)

Sl. No.

Name of the State/UT

Year

No. of UC's pending

Amount (Rs. in lakhs)

Total Amount (Rs. in lakhs)

III

Andhra Pradesh

2008-09

913.00

Arunachal Pradesh

2005-06

60.64

Bihar

2008-09

292.39

Dadra & NagarHaveili

2002-03

4.86

Daman & Diu

2002-03

30.00

Goa

2008-09

33.00

Gujarat

2008-09

1035.00

Jharkhand

2008-09

756.00

Lakshadweep

2008-09

14.25

10.

Meghalaya

1997-98

20.00

11.

Rajasthan

2008-09

785.91

12.

Sikkim

2006-07

42.00

13.

Tamil Nadu

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

1.54

920.01

170.00

1091.55

14.

West Bengal

2008-09

366.65

Most immediate/By Fax

NO. J.11017/6/2010-JR GOVERNMENT OF INDIA/BHARAT SARKAR MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE (DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE)

Jaisalmer House, 26, Man Singh Road, NEW DELHI-110011.

May 20, 2010

Registrar Generals of all High Courts

Sir,

This Department has decided to prepare a comprehensive plan for development of the infrastructure of district and subordinate courts in the country. Earlier, the Department had received information on this subject from the High Courts during the years 2005-06 but that requires to be updated.

You are requested to kindly send the required information in the enclosed format preferably by 31st May, 2010. The information may be sent by e-mail on the address r.abhishek@nic.in and also by post.

While sending the required information, it may be kept in view that only the information relating to the district and subordinate courts may be sent and the cost of land may not be included in the estimated cost for new construction.

This may be treated as most urgent.

Yours faithfully, Ramesh Abhishek)

Format for submitting information on infrastructure needs of district and subordinate courts in the country of the State/High Court____________________________

No. of courts

No. of existing court blogs

No. of new court buildings required (Enclose the list separately as per Annex.I)

No. of Existing court buildings that require additional infrastructure (Enclose the list separately as per Annex.II)

Estimated cost of constructing new buildings (in Rs. Lakhs)

Estimated cost of creating addl. Infrastructure in existing boldgs (in Rs. Lakhs)

Total estrntd Cost (in Rs. Lakhs)

Requirement of funds year wise (in Rs. Lakhs)

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

Govt Pvt.

Details of New Court Buildings to be constructed

No. of courts (location-wise)

Carpet area (location-wise) (In sq. Ft)

Estimated cost (excluding cost of the land) (In Rs. lakhs)

Total estimated cost (In Rs. Lakhs)

Details of Existing Court Buildings where additional infrastructure is required

No. of courts (Location-wise)

Nature of the addl. Infrastructure read (Location-wise)

Carpet area of proposed construction (in sq. ft)

Estimated cost (In Rs. Lakhs)

Total estimated cost (In Rs. Lakhs)

A. I. S. CHEEMA SECRETARY GENERAL

July 9, 2010

Dear Shri Abhishek,

You are requested to give me consolidated information collected by you from High Courts in response to your Letter No. J-11017/6/2010-JR dated May, 20, 2010 immediately.

With regards,

Yours sincerely, (A.I.S. Cheema)

Shri Ramesh Abhishek, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Law & Justice, Jaisalmer House, New Delhi

Information received from High Courts on infrastructure needs of district and subordinate courts

S N

Name of High Courts

Name of the States

No. of court complexes

No. Of courts

No. of existing court buildings

No. of new court buildings required

No. of existing court buildings that require additional infrastructu re

Estimated cost of constructing new buildings

Estimated cost of creating additional infrastructure in existing court buildings

Total estimated cost

Requirement of funds year-wise (In Rs. Crores)

Govt.

Pvt.

(In Rs. Crores)

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

Gujarat

280

789

256

137

155

747

572

1.319

596

470

223

Himachal Pradesh

108

Kerala

411

173

183

200

215

Orissa

144

420

222

116

134

Uttarakhand

230

110

128

Rajasthan

240

847

846

182

209

139

Punjab and Haryana

Punjab

317

396

527

159

Haryana

286

100

Chandigarh

V-

Calcutta

West Bengal

624

152

Jharkhand

477

112

103

111

Karnataka

728

681

565

151

716

143

Bombay

Maharashtra

358

1396

306

112

145

1.082

619

1.712

342

Madhya Pradesh

199

1292

191

217

303

332

Patna

Bihar

121

783

353

202

129

"69

206

Sikkim

Sikkim (Data not provided in the prescribed format)

Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh (Financial Breakup not provided)

145

920

855

878

176

186

Allahabad

Uttar Pradesh

Data not received

Chhattisgarh

285

Jammu & Kashmir

Data not received

Madras

Tamil Nadu

833

715

118

268

320

297

326

359

395

435

Gauhati

Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram, Arunanchal Pradesh

251

Delhi

Data not received

TOTAL

2017

11012

5195

495

1477

988

4,412

1,690

7,077

2,162

1,913

1,641

1,384

1,321

A. T. M. SAMPATH Advocate, Supreme Court of India

Office 49, LAWYER'S CHAMBER SUPREME COURT OF INDIA NEW DELHI - 110 001

----------------------------

Residence D-51A, Hauz Khas, New Delhi 110 016

Date 18.5.10

URGENT - SUPREME COURT MATTER

To,

.............

................

Subject: SLP No. 5221-5222/09: Maharashtra Coop Courts Bar Association v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. - Informatory Report regarding the actual infrastructure of court buildings and housing of the Trial Court Judges - State-wise and individual court-wise - Urgently required by the Amicus, Mr. F.S. Nariman

My dear Judge Sahib,

(1) During the hearing of a matter (detailed in the subject above) in the Supreme Court, the Hon'ble Chief Justice asked the Amicus, Mr. F.S. Nariman to collect detailed State-wise information regarding the existing infrastructure of indicial court buildings and residences in order to effectively implement Justice Shelly Commission recommendations in this context, duly accepted by the Supreme Court.

As you are aware, Justice Shetty Commission Report Vol. III, page 1010, recommended:

16-31 (1) Each State must prepare a 5-year Plan, to improve the existing infrastructure of Courts, construction of new Courts, providing furniture, fixtures, library etc., to all Courts and for construction of Quarters for all Judicial Officers.

(2) You are, therefore, requested to please take effective steps to get collected the required detailed ground realities with regard to the court house and residence presently available to each Trial Court Judge in your State. The details may kindly be tabulated as per annexed Informatory Proforma regarding each Judicial Officer. The information may please be also supplied even with regard to the courts which happen to be lying vacant for want of Presiding Judge or his transfer.

(3) This communication is being issued under the directions of the Amicus, Mr. P.S. Nariman - with a request that the required Informatory Proforma (duly filled up with regard to each court house/Presiding Judge in the State) may kindly be sent back to the address given in the letterhead POSITIVELY before June 30, 2010.

Thereafter, on the basis of the overall position of the infrastructure relating to court buildings and residential accommodation provided to Trial Court Judges throughout the country, Mr. F.S. Nariman would approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court, through an appropriate I A. That matter, after notice, is likely to be heard alongwith the pending Report of Justice Padmanabhan Committee relating to the Allowances and Pensionary benefits - most likely in the third week of July 2010.

THE URGENCY INVOLVED MAY KINDLY BE ASSESSED PROPERLY IN ORDER TO INITIATE IMMEDIATELY THE NECESSARY MEASURES REGARDING THIS MATTER THROUGHOUT YOUR STATE.

(4) I hope and expect that with your active co-operation in this matter, the desired court-wise data of your State would be available by the deadline of 30.6.2010, in order to effectively assist Mr. F.S. Nariman for the task in question.

(5) Kindly acknowledge this communication and also lake the trouble of informing me about the steps you have since initialed in this regard, for onward submission to Mr. F.S. Nariman.

With best regards,

Yours sincerely, (ATM Sampath) Advocate

Enclosures:

A copy of the Informatory Proforma (to be filled up with regard to each court building and residential accommodation provided to Trial Court Judges in your State.

URGENT - SUPREME COURT MATTER

Informatory Proforma regarding actual condition of Court Building and Residential Accommodation presently available to the Presiding Judge

1) Location of court building & designation of its Presiding Judge

2) Approximate size of the court room (in feet)......

3) Condition of furnishings (furniture, fans, coolers/AC, lighting)

.........................

(Is the overall assessment of furnishings satisfactory/poor/very poor?)

4) Availability of separate Chamber/Retiring Room and its furnishings

.........................

(Is the overall assessment of furnishings satisfactory/poor/very poor?)

5) Availability of toilet facilities (Is it exclusive or joint?)

.........................

(Is its condition satisfactory/poor/very poor?)

6) Library facility in the court room (Is it exclusive or joint? Is the Library upto-date and extensive?

.........................

(Is its overall assessment satisfactory/poor/very poor?)

7) The supply of water and electricity to the court room.

.........................

(Is its overall assessment satisfactory/poor/very poor?)

8) Details of facilities for litigants (including sitting facilities, drinking water and toilet).

.........................

(Is its overall assessment satisfactory/poor/very poor?)

9) Details of the residential accommodation for the Presiding Judge of this Court (including provision of a separate residential office-cum-library room). (Is it govt./private accommodation? Is it rent-free accommodation as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court? Is the facility in accordance with the rank of the Presiding Judge?)

.........................

(Is the overall assessment of the accommodation satisfactory/poor/very poor?)

Signature

(Name)

Officer filling up this proforma with full address and phone number

Date:

Place:

A.T.M. SAMPATH 49, Lawyers' Chamber Advocate, Supreme Court of India Supreme Court of India New Delhi-110 001 Phone: 011-23386539

To,

The Secretary General Supreme Court of India New Delhi.

Sub. All India Judges Association v. Union of India-Infrastructure of Subordinate Judiciary

Sir,

Pursuant to oral directions given by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India in the Court No. 1 on 14.05.2010, a letter was addressed by the undersigned to Associations and their members (sitting and retired judges of various Subordinate Courts in the country). A copy of the said letter (dated 18.05.2010) with enclosure containing Informatory Proforma is enclosed.

The Associations and Judges concerned had thereafter approached their own respective High Courts as a result of which the Registrars of the High Courts of Bombay, Allahabad, Kerala, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Sikkim, Aizawl Bench and Goa Bench have since forwarded responses in the said Informatory Proforma as to the infrastructure facilities of judicial court buildings and residences of judges.

Charts are under preparation by the undersigned at the instance of the Amicus incorporating the responses of the said High Courts. A specimen copy of one of such charts relating to Subordinate Courts in the city of Bombay and Greater Bombay is also enclosed for perusal of the Hon'ble Chief Justice and his Companion Judges. Charts for the courts in the State of Maharashtra and the remaining 7 States will be prepared subject to directions of their Lordships.

It is requested that this letter, with enclosures, be circulated to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India and the Hon'ble Judges sitting with him on 12.07.2010

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully, (ATM Sampath) Advocate

STATEWISE AND CADREWISE SUMMARY REPORT (AS ON 28TH FEBRUARY, 2010)

Sl. No.

State/Union Territory Name

Total No of Judicial Districts

Total No. of Talukas having courts

Total No of Court complexes (including outlying Courts also, if more than one are there at District place/Taluka place)

Total No. of Court Complexes having Generators

Total No of Judicial Officers

Total No. of Judicial Officers provided with Laptops

Total No. of Judicial Officers provided with Telephone in Chambers

Total No. of Judicial Officers provided with Broadband facility in Chambers

Total No. of Judicial Officers provided with Inverters at residence

Total No. of Judicial Officers provided telephone at residence

Total No. of Judicial Officers provided with Broadband facility at residence

Sanctioned Strength

Working Strength

Vacancies

Uttar Pradesh

134

240

2185

1923

262

1257

102

1722

1545

Andhra Pradesh

242

144

930

802

128

880

802

206

802

848

3(a)

Maharashtra

310

450

2087

1763

324

1751

870

199

150

1457

1154

3(b)

DadarNagarHaveli & Daman & Diu

3(c)

Goa i.e. South Goa & North Goa

4(a)

West Bengal

935

800

135

830

699

618

548

4(b)

A N Island

Chhatisgarh

307

269

271

257

242

302

Delhi

620

445

175

354

291

287

437

236

Gujarat

151

269

1045

781

264

779

616

480

715

660

8(a)

Assam

326

215

111

220

221

204

166

8(b)

Nagaland

8(c)

Meghalya

8(d)

Manipur

8(e)

Tripura

8(f)

Mizoram

8(g)

Arunachal Pradesh*

Himachal Pradesh

126

116

115

116

115

Jammu & Kashmir

207

166

173

190

Jharkhand

546

397

149

397

381

Karnataka

180

158

914

811

103

824

801

224

800

650

Kerala

117

437

431

425

208

409

425

Madhya Pradesh

147

229

1235

1067

168

1197

1051

250

154

1038

821

15(a)

Tamil Nadu

1 54

251

827

797

697

632

111

664

532

15(b)

Puducherry

Orissa

122

526

481

476

335

399

Bihar

185

1397

1080

317

1047

868

921

704

18(a)

Punjab

408

293

115

293

299

262

18(b)

Haryana

406

287

119

284

269

253

18(c)

Chandigarh

Rajasthan

312

240

896

717

179

760

717

206

717

723

Sikkim

Uttarakhand

265

129

136

119

110

115

100

Total

547

2016

2903

562

16921

13996

2925

13381

9747

2220

693

12645

10992

*As regards Judicial Officer, the process of separation of Executive from Judiciary is yet to be complete. The function of judicial Officer is being performed by Admn. Officer empowered to set as Judicial Magistrate. The Process of appointment to the 2(two) Judicial Officers (District & Session Judge) was under process as on 28th Feb. 2010 in the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, Guwahati.

# Total number of Generators installed in Court Complexes.

Above statement is compiled on the basis of figures received from the High Courts.

District Committee Court Buildings

FORMAT - A

(To be sent by District Committee to State Committee)

STATUS OF COURT BUILDINGS IN THE STATE/UNION TERRITORY OF ___

DISTRICT _____ AS ON _____

S. No

Name of District & Taluka

Whether Court building

If not own Building, whether land is acquired / proposed to be acquired, it's dale & stage of acquisition

Whether the Principal District Judge sent proposal to Ex Eng. PWD ? If yes date.

Whether proposal for construction has been sent by PWD to Architect? If Yes, the Date.

Whether plans have been prepared by Chief Architect? Yes or No.

Date on which plans sent back to PWD by Chief Architect.

Date on which plans / estimates sent to District Court by PWD

When the Principal District Judge sent if to the High Court? It's date & name of Project

When High Court sent it to Govt. it's date

Total estimated cost (In lakhs)

How much fund Govt. has provided till last year? (In lakhs)

Budgetary provision for the current year (In lakhs)

Whether construction is started? If yes, status at the time of report

Remarks Here mention if existing building is sufficient;

insufficient in good or pathetic condition etc.)

In own premises (a)

In rented

premises (b)

State/U.T. Committee Court Buildings

FORMAT - B

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT AT STATE LEVEL STATUS OF COURT BUILDINGS IN THE STATE/UNION TERRITORY OF ___ AS ON ____

S. No

Name of State

Number of Court Buildings

Number of proposals pending for land acquisition with Collectors

Number of proposals sent by Principal District Judges to Executive Engineers (PWD)

Number of proposals pending with PWD to be sent to Architect

Number of Proposals pending with Chief Architect / Deputy Architect.

Number of proposals received back with plans from Architect and still pending with (PWD).

Number of proposals received back with plans and estimates from PWD pending with Principal District Judges.

Number of proposals pending with High Court for confirmation before sending to the government.

Number of proposals pending with State Govt./ Administrator for administrative approval

Number of proposals pending with State Govt./ Administrator for release of finance with amount (In Lakhs)

How much funds Government provided for the pending projects till last year (In Lakhs)

Budgetary position for current year for pending projects (In Lakhs)

In how many projects, construction has actually started.

Remarks

In own premises

(a)

In rented

premises (b)

District Committee Residential Premises

FORMAT - C

(To be sent by District Committee to State Committee)

STATUS OF RESIDENTIAL QUARTERS FOR JUDICIAL OFFICERS IN THE STATE/UNION TERRITORY OF ____ DISTRICT ______ AS ON ______

S. No.

Name of District & Taluka

Whether in own quarters / rented premises/ or in common pool

If not own quarters, whether land is acquired / proposed to be acquired, its date & Stage of acquisition

Whether the Principal District Judge sent proposal to Ex. Eng. PWD ? If yes date

Whether proposal for construction has been sent by PWD to Architect? If yes, the date.

Whether plans have been prepared by Chief Architect? Yes or No.

Date on which plans sent hack to PWD by Chief Architect.

Date on which plans / estimates sent to District Court by PWD

When the Principal District Judge sent it to the High Court? It's date & Name of Project.

When High Court sent it to Govt. it's date

Total estimated cost (In Lakhs)

How much fund Govt. has provided till last year? (In lakhs)

Budgetary provision for the current year (In lakhs)

Whether construction is started? If yes, status at the time of report.

Remarks (Here mention if available quarters etc. are sufficient; insufficient; in good or pathetic conditions etc.

Judicial quarters

(a)

Rented premises

(b)

Common

pool

(c)

State/U.T. Committee Residential Premises

FORMAT - D

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT AT STATE LEVEL

STATUS OF RESIDENTIAL QUARTERS FOR JUDICIAL OFFICERS IN THE STATE/UNION TERRITORY OF_____ AS ON _____

S. No.

Name of State

Number of Residential quarters