JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the petitioner who is an Advocate and who appears in person in support of the contentions made in this petition. This petition has been filed questioning the legality and correctness or otherwise of the Circular dated 14.7.2021 and in the opinion of the petitioner, this Circular is illegal and ultra-vires Article 166 of the Constitution of India. On this ground, the petitioner has sought quashing and setting aside of the Circular dated 14.7.2021 and this is the first prayer of the petitioner.

2. The petitioner has also made further prayers. The further prayers relate to restoration of the position ante 14.7.2021, grant of permission to the Advocates to file pleadings, submissions etc. on legal paper without any objection from the ministerial staff and issuance of direction for continuation of the practice of filing of pleadings and submissions on A4 size paper with GSM 75 only for a specified time and issuance of direction to discontinue this practice after specified time is over.

3. By the impugned Circular dated 14.7.2021, the Hon’ble the Chief Justice and Judges of this Court have taken a decision to direct that all pleadings, petitions, affidavits or other documents etc. submitted to the Registry on judicial side for the purpose of filing in the High Court and it’s Benches at Nagpur, Aurangabad and Panaji (Goa) and all other Courts in the State of Maharashtra, shall be in a manner and on a paper type having specifications as given herein-below:

“Superior quality A4 size paper having not less than 75 GSM with printing on the both sides of the paper with Font - Times New Roman or Georgia, Font size 14 with inner margin of 5 cms and outer margin 3 cms.”

4. This Circular also directs that even for internal communications, similar paper type with similar specifications and in same manner shall be used.

5. According to the petitioner, this Circular which is nothing but an executive order of the High Court has not been issued in the name of Governor, as required under Articles 166(1) and 166(2) of the Constitution of India.

6. With due respect to the submissions made by the petitioner, we must say it here that there is no substance in the argument of the petitioner. Reasons are not too far to seek.

7. The independence of judiciary, which is the third wing of the democratic scheme under the Constitution, is one of the basic features of the Constitution and the powers of the High Court as delineated in Chapter V of the Constitution are representative of the independent status of the High Court [See: High Court of Judicature at Bombay vs. Shirish Kumar Rangrao Patil, (1997) 8 SCC 339]. Under the Constitutional scheme there is a separation of powers amongst executive, legislature and the High Court and each wing of governance is supreme within its own sphere of powers. Under Article 227(2) read with Article 235 of the Constitution, forming part of Chapter V, power has been conferred upon the High Court to do various acts which include, making and issuance of general rules and prescription of forms for regulation of practice and procedure of the Courts in respect of which the High Court has authority to superintendent. This power of the High Court is exclusive to it under the doctrine of ‘separation of powers’ and it cannot be interfered with or encroached upon by any other wing of the Government. As regards the prescription of Article 166, which is about conduct of Government business, we must say it here that it has it’s application to the executive wing of the Government and not to the High Court which is supreme within it’s own sphere of power under Article 227(2) read with Article 235, unless exercise of power by High Court under these articles comes in conflict with any other provisions of or power under the Constitution of India, such as Article 14, 16, 311 or the Rules made by the Governor under Article 309 [See: State of Assam vs. Kusewar Saikia, AIR 1970 SC 1616, Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association vs.