JUDGMENT :

S. Manikumar, J.

1. Instant Public Interest Litigation has been filed challenging the inaction on the part of the respondents to implement the proposal for acquiring additional land for High Court of Kerala, to improve its parking facilities. Reliefs sought for in the writ petition are as under:

(i) “To call for the records leading to Ext.P1 letter dated 23.08.2007 sent by the 5th respondent, High Court of Kerala, represented by its Registrar General, and Ext.P12 proceedings dated 29.07.2020 issued by the Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railway, Thiruvananthapuram, and to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writs or order or direction to respondents 3 & 4, to provide adequate funds to pay the lease charges to the Railway, on surrendering their land having extent of 466.2 SQM in the northern boundary of the existing Salim Ali Road and direct them to implement the road widening scheme proposed by the Registry of the High Court of Kerala in Ext.P1 representation, at the earliest or within a time frame fixed by this Court, considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writs or direction or order directing the 3rd respondent, State of Kerala, to take appropriate steps to acquire enough and sufficient land from the property now in possession of the railway, in the northern side of the High Court premises, comprised in Survey Nos.2495 and 2496 of Ernakulam Village of Kanayannur Taluk upto the platform of old railway station, for the development and improvement of infrastructure of the High Court of Kerala, including its parking area. Direct the respondents to pay cost of this proceedings.”

2. In support of the reliefs sought for, petitioner has raised the following grounds:

“(A) Evidently, the proposal of the High Court to widen the existing Salim Ali Road, in the northern side of the High Court building was positively considered by the Railway authorities, which is the custodian of the abutting land and Ext.P12 proceedings of the Indian railway is a self speaking document in this regard. However, neither the State Government nor the Corporation of Kochi is taking any serious concern on the demand of the High Court and the Lawyer Community.

(B) It is just and necessary to direct the 3rd and 4th respondents to take effective steps for widening the existing Salim Ali Road, in terms of the proposal of the High Court, which is accepted by the Railway in Ext.P12 proceedings and the State Government or the 4th respondent Corporation of Kochi be directed to deposit the required lease charge for the surrender of land covered by Ext.P12 proceedings of the Railway.

(C) In All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India reported in (2010) 14 SCC 705), the Hon’ble Supreme Court reminded the Executive Authorities that justice delivery system is the bedrock of the Rule of Law, which is held to be the basic structure of the Constitution. In the absence of adequate judicial infrastructure, it would not be possible to sustain rule of law in this country and such infrastructures include physical infrastructures like buildings and incidental facilities like parking etc. The State Government was bound to follow the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in its letter and spirit.

(D) As per the decision in the All India Judges Association case, the Hon'ble Apex Court categorically held that lack of resources and financial mobility cannot be a ground for denying the infrastructure facilities to the judiciary.”

3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are, in All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India reported in (2010) 14 SCC 705), the Hon'ble Supreme Court reminded the executive authorities that justice delivery system is the bedrock of the Rule of Law, which is held to be the basic structure of the Constitution. Therefore, in the absence of adequate judicial infrastructure and facilities for proper functioning of the Court, it would not be possible to sustain the Rule of la