LEGAL ATTORNEYS & BARRISTERS Vs. CHIEF SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner is a firm of advocates. The petition is in the nature of a public interest litigation. The prayers made in the petition read thus:

(3.) As far as prayer (a) is concerned, a writ of mandamus is sought against the Legislature to enact a law; even prayer (b) virtually seeks a direction from this Court to the respondents to make a statutory provision and even prayer (d) seeks similar relief inasmuch as it prays that the cases against the advocates should be tried by a Special Court. This cannot be done unless there is a proper legislation. Thus, except prayer (c), the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Legislature to legislate in a particular manner. The Law on this aspect is very clear. In the case of Union of India vs. Prakash P. Hinduja and another reported in (2003) 6 SCC 195, the Apex Court has held that no Court can direct a Legislature to enact a particular law. The aforesaid decision of the Apex Court has been constantly followed thereafter. Therefore, no relief can be granted in terms of prayers (a), (b) and (d).