K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.

The petitioner is a practising lawyer. He claims, he is a public spirited citizen very much interested in the efficient administration of justice. He points out that large number of cases are pending before this Court and the civil courts in the State. According to him, the panacea to cure the said ill is to reduce the vacations of this Court and the civil courts. He also suggests that all Saturdays should be made working days for this Court. Therefore, he has filed this Writ Petition, seeking the following reliefs:

"i) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ or direction or order to the respondents for amending the relevant rules and regulations which envisage the number of holidays/working days of High Courts and Subordinate Courts.

ii) to order that all Saturdays shall be working days for the courts including High Court and the Tribunals.

iii) To quash Section 23A of High Court Judges Conditions of Service Act 1954 providing vacation for High Court and Section 19 of Kerala Civil Court Act providing vacation for Lower Courts as they are violative of Article 14 and Article 21 of Constitution of India as ultra-vires.

iv) To direct the respondents to make appropriate rules and regulations for the full utilization of the working strength of the available Judges and infrastructure.

v) to order that Saturdays shall be working days for all courts and the minimum working days shall be 300 days for the working of all courts including High Court.

vi) to direct 1st respondent to make special sittings for clearing of arrears of cases pending for more than 7 years during the Summer Vacation.

vii) to grant such other reliefs that may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

2. The first prayer is for a mandamus to the respondents to amend the relevant rules and regulations concerning the vacations/working days of the High Court and the Subordinate Courts. It is well-settled in law that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot issue a mandamus to the rule-making authority to frame or amend rules. The said principle is founded on the fundamental premise that no person can claim any legal right to have a rule framed/amended in a particular manner and the rule-making authority does not owe any corresponding duty to do the same. In the absence of any right - duty relationship, no mandamus could be prayed for by the petitioner. Even assuming this Court issues a mandamus, it is going to be a futile exercise, because in matters of subordinate legislation, the rules framed by the State Government will have to be placed before the Legislature. If the Legislature by resolution undo the rule framed, the issuance of a writ by this Court will become futile. Members of the Legislature are protected by the privileges under Article 194 of the Constitution of India and they are not answerable to the court for voting in a particular manner in the Legislature. So, the prayer for mandamus fails.

3. The next main prayer is to quash Section 23A of the High Court Judges Conditions of Service Act, 1954 and Section 19 of the Kerala Civil Court Act providing for vacation to the High Court and the lower courts respectively. When a statutory provision is challenged, it is elementary that the prayers should be for a declaration that the provision is unconstitutional and for a mandamus not to enforce that statutory provision. This legal position has been restated by the Apex Court in Prabod Verma v. State of U.P. (AIR 1985 SC 167). The Honourable Supreme Court in the said decision had gone to the extent of saying that when a party is represented by a lawyer and such improper prayers are made while challenging a legislation, the Court should decline to hear the petition unless the writ petition is amended, by making proper prayers. But, we are not dealing with the matter on such technical grounds.

4. Whether the number of working days of the High Cou