Judgment 1. It is a very sad situation that the court today has had to question the credential of the petitioner in bringing in this petition as a public interest litigation. The cause list shows the name of Binay Kumar Singh. The petitioner is Binay Kumar Singh. On inquiry an advocate stands at the Bar of the court and he says that he is Binay Kumar Singh. Thus, Binay Kumar Singh, Advocate, is the petitioner of the present writ petition. 2. The relief sought is, in effect, that he be granted a franchise to run a distribution of cooking gas under a licence. It appears that this petitioner may have applied or attempted to apply for a gas agency from Indian Oil Corporation as franchise to sell cooking gas. The petitioner was unsuccessful. It is contended that the application form had not been given to him. 3. The petitioner mentions in this publie interest litigation that he has a right to equality and a fundamental right to receive a gas agency to carry on a business. The petitioner has cited several Supreme Court decisions in the text of the petition. Now the petitioner desires a direction from the High Court that he be given a Form, to apply, and be considered for running a gas agency as a franchise of the Indian Oil Corporation. 4. Clearly the petitioner, as a lawyer, is seeking a personal relief and lables this petition as a public interest litigtion. This step at the hands of a lawyer is an abuse of the process of the court. 5. If the Court were to make a mistake in issuing notice on this petition then the very fundamentals on which the legal profession rests will be blown to smithereens. One of the cardinal rule and discipline of the advocates profession is that a lawyer will not conduct any other business and if he does so then it will tantamount to an unethical practice. A person intending to join the legal profession has to make up his mind either to wind out of his commercial business if he intends to be a legal practitioner or to hang up his gown to do business. 6. It is for no different reason that the Supreme Court in re. A person intending to join the legal profession has to make up his mind either to wind out of his commercial business if he intends to be a legal practitioner or to hang up his gown to do business. 6. It is for no different reason that the Supreme Court in re. R.D. Saxena V/s. Balram Prasad Sharma, (2000) 7 S.C.C. 264 , made an observation that the time has come that the High Courts frame, in effect, the Advocate on Record Rules, an aspect which is resisted at the Bar in deference to the desire of the Supreme Court. If the present case is an eye opener interest will need to be shown for a qualitative appraisal of the legal profession by no other than the profession itself. The legal profession cannot run away from introspection. It owes as much responsibility as any other profession does like Architects Engineers, Doctors etc., which call for a serious period of study and training before practising the inhouse apprenticeship also, before the vocational institution where professional training is imparted. For lawyers claiming to be called to the Bar to practise it is a free-for-all affairs after the LLB degree to put on a gown and head for the court. There may be exceptions. 7. Even otherwise the drafting of the petition seems to be a half hearted affair. There is no formality in which the parties have been arrayed and ultimately when the court was dictating this order the petitioner submitted that he had actually filed this petition for the benefit of his "Bhagina" (nephew). The petition is a falsehood then. This itself is unethical because it breaches the faith of the court. The petitioner is, in fact, camouflage lawyer but otherwise in business given the occasion. 8. The person calling himself as Binay Kumar Singh will show his certificate of enrolment to the Registrar General of the High Court within two weeks from today. 9. Consigned.