( 1 ) THE petitioners, numbering two, by this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seek a declaration that 4 of the Delhi High Court (Amendment) Act, 1991 (for short "the Amending Act") is ultra vires the Constitution and section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 (forshort the Principal Act"), and so also Notification No. 825 (E) dated 9 November 1992 of the Central Government in the Ministry of Law, Justice and Compiny Affairs, is ultra vires the Constitution and section 10 of the Principal Act. By the Amending Act the words "rupees one lakh" in sub-section (2) of section 5 of the Principal. Act were substituted with the words "rupees five lakhs". This meant that the High Court of Delhi would have ordinary original civil jurisdiction in every suit value of which exceeded rupees five lakhs. . The Amending Act received the assent of the President of India on 28 December 1991. Sub-section (2) of section 1 of the Amending Act provided that it shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may by notification in the official gazette appoint. This notification is No. 825 (E) dated 9 November 1992 and is being impugned. The Central Government by this notification appointed 9 November 1992 asthe date on which the Amending Act shall come into force. The petitioners also seek a declaration that the respondent Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, is under a legal obligation to immediately issue a notification to bifurcate the subordinate courts in Delhi, and further that order transferring to the subordinate courts certain class of suits/ proceedings as on 9 November 1992 from the Delhi High Court is also ultra vires section 5 read with section 10 of the Principal Act as jurisdiction cannot be split. Then the petitioners seek a writ of certiorari or other order or direction to quash the decision to transfer suits and proceedings filed on the original side of the Delhi High Court on or before 9 November 1992, and a similar writ of prohibition, order or direction restraining the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court to transfer any such suits or proceedings, and lastly, the petitioners seek a writ of mandamus, direction or order directing the respondents to act in accordance with the principles of legality in the matter of giving effect to the amendment made in section 5 of the Principal Act by the Amending Act.

( 2 ) AS noted above, there are two petitioners. First petitioner is an association of advocates and the second petitioner is a member of the first petitioner. When the petition was originally instituted there were five respondents. First respondent is the Chief Justice of Delhi High Court by name and the second respondent is the Chief Justice by designation, the third, fourth and fifth respondents, respectively, being Union of India in the Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs; the Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi; and the High Court of Delhi through its Registrar. The matter in the first instance was listed before the Vacation Judge who deleted the first respondent from the array of the respondents because the learned Judge was of the view that no case of personal mala fides or even estoppel had been set up against him. He recorded that for the purposes of proper determination of the issues involved in the writ petition the averments made in paras 27, 28, 29 and 30 of the petition appeared to be of no consequence. The learned Judge also said that since the Chief Justice in his official capacity bad been impleaded as second respondent and High Court had beenjoined as fifth respondent, it was unnecessary to retain the first respondent who has been sued by name. His name was, therfore, deleted. The complaint in effect in paragraphs 27, 28, 29 and 30 was that the Chief Justice either in his personal capacity or as the Chief Justice could not take up the matter to the Full Court to give effect to section 4 of the Amending Act.

( 3 ) SINCE a lot turns on th