( 1 ). In pursuance of the direction contained in the order dated 12/8/1997 the petitioner has filed an application for amendment of the writ petition. The said application is allowed and the amendments sought are permitted to be made. Shri Muralidhar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, will file the amended copy of the writ petition within two weeks.

( 2 ). In pursuance of the directions contained in the order dated 14/10/19977, an affidavit of shri Bir Singh, Under-Secretary to the government of India in the Ministry of Law and Justice has been filed on behalf of the Union of India. We have perused the said affidavit. It appears that while the provisions of the Act except Ch. III have been extended to all the States vide notification dated 9/11/1995, the provisions of Ch. III have not been extended to a number of States and Union Territories for the reason that for the purpose of extending the provisions of Ch. III, it is necessary that the State government/union Territory Administration concerned should have framed the relevant rules under Section 28 of the Act. It has been stated that since rules have not been framed in certain States/union Territories, provisions of Ch. III have not been extended there.

( 3 ). According to the affidavit of Shri Bir Singh the following States/ union Territories have not framed the rules so far:

1. Arunachal Pradesh

2. Kerala

3. Maharashtra

4. Nagaland

5. Tripura

6. Union Territory of Chandigarh

7. Union Territory of Daman and Diu

8. Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli

9. Union Territory of Lakshadweep and

10. Pondicherry

( 4 ). Ms Kamini Jaiswal, the learned counsel states that rules have been framed for the Union Territory of Chandigarh and have been notified vide notification dated 12/9/1997.

( 5 ). The provisions of the Act except Ch. III were extended to all the States and the Union Territories on 9/11/1995. More than two years have elapsed. The time available was more than sufficient for the State governments and the Union Territories to act and frame rules under Section 28 of the Act. It is directed that the States and the Union Territories which have not framed the rules so far, i. e, the above-mentioned States/union Territories excluding the Union Territory of Chandigarh shall frame the relevant rules under Section 28 and notify the same within a period of two months. As soon as the rules are framed, the same shall be duly intimated tothe Union government and the Union government shall take steps to issue the notification applying the provisions of Ch. III to that State/union territory within two weeks from the date of such intimation.

( 6 ). In the amendment application filed by the petitioner it is stated that the High court Legal Services Committee has not been constituted in a number of States for the reason that the regulations which are required to be framed under Section 29-A (sic 29 of the Act have not been framed yet. According to the amendment application such regulations have not been framed in the States of Gujarat, Mizoram, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, punjab and Tamil Nadu. It is not clear as to whether the High court Legal services Committee has not been constituted in the various States/union territories on account of the failure to frame the regulations or even though the regulations have been made but such Committee has not been constituted. Shri Muralidhar states that the averments in the amendment application have been made on the basis of the information that has been supplied by some of the States/union Territories and that some States/union territories have not furnished the necessary information in that regard. It is, therefore, directed that in the States/union Territories where the High court Legal Services Committee has not been constituted either because of the absence of the regulations or even though the regulations have been made such Committee has not been constituted, the State government/union territory Administration concerned shall frame the re