Judgment 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the order of 15 April, 2002 on C.W.J.C. No. 1354 of 2002 : Anamika Kumari V/s. The Union of India & Ors. 2. The issue in the writ petition was plainly whether the franchise of a gas agency had been provided to one of the claimants irregularly. The franchise was held by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. The petitioner Anamika Kumari was also an aspirant. The respondent Kamini Devi was also a person who applied to receive that franchise. 3. The contention of the petitioner in the writ petition was that the respondent Kamini Devi had incorrectly declared her domicile which actually was Patna but wrongly shown as Champaran. 4. After exchange of pleadings and on the basis of the record, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that prima facie the respondent Kamini Devi, in fact, is resident of village Dumaria, West Champaran. The learned Judge has considered the facts on record. These facts are noticed in paragraph 5 of the order. On the basis of the record and reaching a conclusion that the respondent Kamini Devi was domicile of District West Champaran, the learned Judge declined to interfere on the writ petition. 5. Aggrieved, the petitioner Anamika Kumari has challenged the decision of the learned Judge by this Letters Patent Appeal. 6. Firstly, as the learned Judge has sufficiently noticed the record of the writ petition and drawn conclusion, to the effect, that the respondent Kamini Devi was indeed a domicile of West Champaran and not of Patna, the matter ends. Secondly, the Court noticed the pleadings in the Letters Patent Appeal which is very unfortunate. It would be appropriate that the Court records the pleadings. Whether it has been made by the client or the lawyer, is not for the Court to find out. But the Court cannot permit litigants or lawyers to make such pleadings so lightly and to get away with it. The Judgment or an order of the Court challenged may be in error or may perhaps be resting on an illegality and such a submission may be made in the grounds of challenge. But the Court cannot permit either counsel or parties to say that the order has been rendered on an extraneous consideration. This is a very serious matter. The Judgment or an order of the Court challenged may be in error or may perhaps be resting on an illegality and such a submission may be made in the grounds of challenge. But the Court cannot permit either counsel or parties to say that the order has been rendered on an extraneous consideration. This is a very serious matter. In paragraph 6 at page 7 in the Letters Patent Appeal the pleading runs thus : "Very lightly and on extraneous consideration this fact has been overlooked by the learned Single Judge and thus (sic) has been rejected." 7. The Court cautions the litigants and lawyers alike that such pleadings presented in Court may. render causes liable to dismissal unless submission, like present one rests on parameters of beyond a reasonable doubt with affirmation on a personal responsibility. Such frivolity in submissions cannot be permitted. 8. Dismissed.