This writ petition has been filed for issuing mandamus directing the respondents to decide the petitioners representation (Annexure-6), by which petitioner had prayed that the papers of vehicle which she had surrendered before the Regional Transport Authority, be returned to her and if there is any legal impediment, it should be given in writing. 2. However, in the body of the petition, particularly in paragraph 17, it has been stated that tax to the tune of Rs. 42,000 is being demanded and, therefore, they are not returning the papers surrendered by the petitioner. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner was asked if there is any outstanding tax to the tune of Rs. 42,000 towards the petitioner, how the representation can be decided unless the petitioner deposits the said amount or files appeal against that under the provisions of Sections 18 of the U. P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1997, and many other questions; factual as well as legal were put to the learned Counsel for the petitioner but every time he gave parrot like reply that petitioner is concerned only to release of the papers surrendered by her and he was not in a position to explain as what are the real facts of the case and as to whether the amount of tax is admitted by the petitioner or not and as to whether she is willing to pay the said amount. Learned Counsel expressed complete ignorance to the facts and legal position. 4. We are of the considered opinion that if factual foundation has not been laid down and there are no proper pleadings, there is no occasion for the Court to entertain the writ petition as every party has an obligation to plead its case properly and substantiate the pleadings by filing sufficient evidence in support thereto. Vide Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1988 SC 2181 ; Larson and Turbo v. State of Gujarat, 1998 (1) JCLR 786 (SC); 1998 (4) SCC 287; National Building Construction Corporation v. S. Raghunathan and others, 1998 (7) SCC 66 ; Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani and others, 1999 (1) SCC 141 ; Chitra Kumari v. Union of India and others, 2001 (2) JCLR 150 (SC); AIR 2001 SC 1237 and State of U. P. and others v. Chandra Prakash Pandey, AIR 2001 SC 1298 . 5. 5. In Atul Castings Ltd. v. Bawa Gurvachan Singh, AIR 2001 SC 1684 , the Honble apex Court observed as under : "the findings in the absence of necessary pleadings and supporting evidence cannot be sustained in law. " 6. Similar view has been reiterated in Vithal N. Shetti and another v. Prakash N. Rudrakar and others, (2003)1 SCC 18 . 7. More so, taking such a casual approach to the case and not having proper pleadings amounts to contempt of Court. Honble apex Court in Re : Sanjiv Dutta, 1995 (2) JCLR 62 (SC); (1995) 3 SCC 619 , observed as under : "some members of the profession have been adopting perceptibly casual approach to the practice of the profession as is evident from. . . . the filing of incomplete and inaccurate pleadings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . and the failure to remove office objections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . they do not realize the seriousness of these acts and omissions. They not only amount to the contempt of Court but do positive dis-service to the litigants and create embarrassing situation with Court leading to avoidable, unpleasantness and delay in disposal of matters. This augurs ill for the heath of our judicial system. " (Emphasis added ). 8. In Thakur Sukhpal Singh v. Thakur Kalyan Singh and another, AIR 1963 SC 146 , Honble Supreme Court has held that in absence of proper assistance to the Court by the lawyer, there is no obligation on the part of the Court to decide the case, for the simple reason that unless lawyer satisfies the Court that there is some balance in his clients favour to alter the situation, the Court is not able to decide the case. It is not for the Court itself to decide the controversy. The Court observed as under : ". . . . . . He (Counsel) cannot just raise objections in his memorandum of appeal and leave it to the appellate Court to give its decision on those points after going through the record and determining the correctness thereof. It is not for the appellate Court itself to find out what the points for determination can be and then proceed to give a decision on those points. " 9. It is not for the appellate Court itself to find out what the points for determination can be and then proceed to give a decision on those points. " 9. While deciding the said case, Honble apex Court placed reliance upon judgment of Privy Council in Mst. Fakrunisa v. Moulvi Izarus, AIR 1921 PC 55 and its earlier judgment in Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Lotah, AIR 1955 SC 425 . 10. In T. C. Mathai and another v. District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, (1993)3 SCC 614, Honble Supreme Court observed : "the work in a Court of law is a serious and responsible function. The primary duty of a. . . . . . . . . . . . Court is to administer. . . . . . . . . . . justice. Any lax or wayward approach, if adopted towards the issues involved in the case, can cause serious consequences for the parties concerned. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . In the adversary system which is now being followed in India, the both in civil and criminal litigation, it is very necessary that the Court gets proper assistance from both sides. " 11. Similar, in Bhola Singh v. The Prescribed Authority, AIR 1999 Raj 242 , it has been observed as under : ". . . . . . . Moreover, the quality of the judgment depends upon the assistance rendered at the Bar. The Judge cannot take the entire responsibility of laying down a correct law unilaterally without any assistance of the learned members of the bar. The Judge cannot afford to retire from chamber and sit in the library and find out the case law on the issues involved in every case and what is the occasion to do anything in a case where the pleadings are so vague as the petition itself cannot be entertained. " 12. Thus, the legal position emerges that a lawyer is duty bound to render proper assistance to the Court and for want of the same, the Court can refuse to proceed with the case. 13. " 12. Thus, the legal position emerges that a lawyer is duty bound to render proper assistance to the Court and for want of the same, the Court can refuse to proceed with the case. 13. Thus, as the learned Counsel for the petitioner is unable to render any assistance, as explained herein above, we find impossible to proceed with the matter and being helpless and, considering that we have no obligation to find out material question of facts and law, it is not warranted to proceed with the matter. Further, as no time was sought by the learned Counsel for the petitioner to prepare the case further, we have no option but to dismiss the petition, for want of proper assistance by the learned Counsel. 14. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. Petition dismissed. .