JUDGMENT Hon’ble Dilip Gupta, J.—This petition has been filed without any sense of responsibility. Facts have been narrated in the list of dates in such a manner that they do not make any sense. It has been stated that the petitioner approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution but their Lordships were not pleased to accept their petition and directed them to approach the High Court. In this respect it has been stated as under : "Hon’ble Supreme Court passed the order and except the court fees of the petitioners." 2. In the list of dates it has categorically been mentioned that the Tehsildar in connivance with the Lekhpal and Assistant Tehsildar came to the field of the petitioners and assaulted petitioner Nos. 14 and 23 on 14th February, 2006. However, there are only 14 petitioners and there is no petitioner No. 23. The fact about assault by the authorities has not been mentioned in the body of the petition. No explanation has been furnished by the learned counsel as under what circumstances the petitioners have stated these facts in the list of dates if they have not mentioned them in the writ petition. The reason may be that the affidavit is filed to verify the contents of the petition and it does not include the contents of the list of dates. 3. In paragraph 4 of the petition the petitioners have stated as under : "It is further stated that the Tehsildar of the District Bijnor had demanded illegal money from the petitioners regarding the above lands and also threatened the petitioners that the lands will be taken back from the petitioners and cancel their lease (Patta) and given to other people whereupon the petitioners shown inability to pay such illegal money to the Authorities concerned but Tehsildar is adament to act illegally with the petitioners. The English translation and photostat copies of Khatian are being filed herewith and marked as Annexure 1 to this writ petition.” 4. Further in paragraph 6 it has been stated as under : "That on 30.1.2006 the Tehsildar of District Bijnor called the petitioners and threatened them to take back the lands from the petitioners if they are not obliged to Tehsildar. The petitioners represented to the concerned Authorities which is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure 3 to this writ petition.” 5. The petitioners represented to the concerned Authorities which is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure 3 to this writ petition.” 5. The contents of these two paragraphs have been sworn on the basis of records. We fail to understand how the issue of demand of illegal gratification could sworn on the basis of record in the absence of any document on the record. Therefore, the affidavit has also been filed in a casual and cavalier manner without any sense of responsibility. Allegations have also been made against the Tehsildar of district Bijnor, without specifying any Tehsil in district Bijnor. As there are large number of Tehsils in every district notice cannot be issued unless the specific Tehsildar who wanted to cancel the lease in favour of the petitioners is mentioned. Even respondent No. 3 arrayed in the memo of parties is Tehsildar, District Bijnor. The allegations of demand of illegal gratification have been made without impleading any person by name. Such course is not permissible in law in view of the settled legal proposition that when allegations of mala fide are alleged, the party is to be impleaded by name. (Vide Dr. J.N. Banavalikar v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr., AIR 1996 SC 326 ; State of Bihar & Anr. v. P.P. Sharma, IAS & Anr., 1992 Suppl (1) SCC 222; I.K. Mishra v. Union of India & Ors., (1997) 6 SCC 228 ; All India State Bank Officers Federation & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., JT 1996 (8) SC 550 and Federation of Railway Officers Association & Ors. v. Union of India, 2003 AIR SCW 1764). 6. Learned counsel has not been able to furnish any explanation as under what circumstances the petition has been filed in such a manner. He also does not take the responsibility of what has been stated in this petition as he submits that the petition has been drafted by some other lawyer. v. Union of India, 2003 AIR SCW 1764). 6. Learned counsel has not been able to furnish any explanation as under what circumstances the petition has been filed in such a manner. He also does not take the responsibility of what has been stated in this petition as he submits that the petition has been drafted by some other lawyer. This petition is not merely an abuse of the process of the Court but also amounts to criminal contempt as explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Re: Sanjiv Datta, (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 their absence when the matters are called out, the filing of incomplete and inaccurate pleadings - many times even illegible and without personal check and verification, the non-payment of court fees and process fees, the failure to remove office objections, the failure to take steps to serve the parties, et al. They do not realise the seriousness of these acts and omissions. They not only amount to the contempt of the Court but do positive dis-service to the litigants and create embarrassing situation in the court leading to avoidable unpleasantness and delay in the disposal of matters. This augurs ill for the health of our judicial system.” (Emphasis added) 7. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that filing of this kind of petition amounts to criminal contempt but as this Court is overburdened with petitions, we do not desire to initiate criminal proceedings. 8. We, therefore, dismiss the petition and impose a cost of Rs. 21,000/- which shall be recovered by the District Collector, Bijnor as arrears of land revenue from the petitioners and the same shall be deposited with the Legal Services Authority, Allahabad High Court within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order and for that purpose Sri C.K. Rai, learned Standing Counsel is requested to transmit the copy of the order to the District Collector, Bijnor along with a photocopy of the petition. Petition Dismissed. ———