JUDGMENT : B.S. Chauhan, C.J. - This petition has been filed as a PIL seeking the following reliefs: (i) as to why the illegalities and irregularities committed by the authorities shall not be enquired into by the appropriate authorities; or (ii) as to why the responsible persons shall not be liable to be penalized for the above irregularities. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case as disclosed in the writ petition are that the Petitioners are residents of Ghodasahi and Chhatrapur villages and in the middle of the locality there was a big tank (Jalasaya) having an area more than five acres of land which was in common use of the villagers. Opposite party No. 5 has claimed ownership over the said property and restrained the Petitioners and other villagers to use the said tank. The Petitioners brought this fact to the notice of opposite party No. 4-Tahasildar, Soro for taking necessary action against such unlawful possession as back as 30 years. However, opposite party No. 4 did not solve their problem. At a later stage, opposite party No. 4 Tahasildar, Soro has granted a patta in favour of opposite party No. 5 without considering the grievance of the Petitioners vide order dated 8.11.1984 while deciding R. Misc. Case No. 402 of 1984 (Annex. 3 ). Hence this petition. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has submitted that the grievance of the Petitioners made to the Tahasildar is not being considered. Therefore, this Court should grant the relief sought by the Petitioners as referred to hereinabove. 4. At the time of hearing, learned Counsel for Petitioners was asked to point out the statutory provisions under which the patter had been granted in favour of opposite party No. 5 and what is the procedure for grant of such patter and in case the procedure requires issuing notice to the public at large or some individuals, as to whether the Petitioners had raised any objection at the relevant time. In case patter had been granted in 1984 what is the occasion for the Petitioners to wake up after the inordinate delay of 22 years as the writ petition has been filed in December,2006 and as to whether it was open to the Petitioners to file any appeal or revision against the order of the Tahasildar (Annex. 3). In case patter had been granted in 1984 what is the occasion for the Petitioners to wake up after the inordinate delay of 22 years as the writ petition has been filed in December,2006 and as to whether it was open to the Petitioners to file any appeal or revision against the order of the Tahasildar (Annex. 3). He was also confronted as to why relief of quashing the patter granted in favour of opposite party No. 5 has not been sought. Petitioners are seeking relief for holding inquiry about the illegalities committed by the authorities, but no relief to quash the patter has been asked for. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners is not able to answer any question put to him. Nor he is aware what are the statutory provisions under which the patter had been granted. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners is not be able to render any assistance to the Court whatsoever. 6. In Thakur Sukhpal Singh Vs. Thakur Kalyan Singh the Supreme Court 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 client's 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. 7. While deciding the said case, Apex Court placed reliance upon judgment of Privy Council in Mst. Fakrunisa and Ors. v. Moulvi Izarus Sadik and Ors. AIR 1921 PC 55 wherein it had been observed as under: In every appeal it is incumbent upon the Appellants to show some reason why the judgment appealed from should be disturbed; there must be some balance in their favour when all the circumstances are considered to justify the alteration of the judgment that stands. Their Lordships are unable to find that this duty has been discharged. 8. Their Lordships are unable to find that this duty has been discharged. 8. In T.C. Mathai and Another Vs. The District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala 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, both in civil and criminal litigation, it is very necessary that the court gets proper assistance from both sides. 9. The Rajasthan High Court in Bhola Singh and etc. Vs. The Prescribed Authority, The Tehsildar and Others, held as under: the quality of the judgment depends upon the assistance rendered at the Bar. The Judge can not 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. 10. In D.P. Chadha v. Triyugi Narain Mishra and Ors. (2001) 2 SCC 221 the Apex Court has observed as under: Mutual confidence in the discharge of duties and cordial relations between Bench and Bar smoothen the movement of the chariot. As responsible officers of the court, as they are called and rightly, the counsel have an overall obligation of assisting the courts in a just and proper manner in the just and proper administration of justice. A lawyer must not hesitate in telling the court the correct position of law when it is undisputed and admits of no exception. This obligation of a counsel flows from the confidence reposed by the court in the counsel appearing for any of the two sides. A counsel, being an officer of court, shall apprise the Judge with the correct position of law whether for or against either party. (Emphasis added) 11. In such a fact situation, where the learned Counsel is not in a position to render any assistance to the Court, there is no obligation on the part of the Court to decide the case. 12. (Emphasis added) 11. In such a fact situation, where the learned Counsel is not in a position to render any assistance to the Court, there is no obligation on the part of the Court to decide the case. 12. More so it is settled.legal proposition that the Court cannot grant relief which has not been specifically asked for by the litigant. (Vide Trojan and Co. Ltd. Vs. Rm. N.N. Nagappa Chettiar, ; Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others Vs. Jyotish Chandra Biswas, ; Rhone-Poulenc (India) Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and Others, ; & National Board of Examinations Vs. G. Anand Ramamurthy and Others, ). 13. In the instant case, no explanation has been furnished either in the petition or in the Court by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners for approaching this Court after 22 years of the grant of patter in favour of opposite party No. 5 and no assistance is being rendered to the Court either on facts or on law. We are, therefore, not in a position to adjudicate upon the controversy in this petition. 14. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed