JUDGMENT T. Vaiphei, J. 1. The Petitioner in this writ petition is questioning the legality of the reconstitution of the Managing Committee of the Purna Nagar Up-graded L.P. School in the West Garo Hills. At the outset, I am constrained to observe that the writ petition is full grammatical and typographical errors and is also clumsily drafted: I have difficulty in understanding what the Petitioner wants from this Court. I have no time to waste in reading and re-reading the pleadings just to comprehend what the Petitioner wants and not for resolving the factual and legal controversies involved in the writ petition. This reminds me of the observations of the Apex Court in Shantilal Manganlal and Anr. v. Chunilal Ranchoddas and Ors. (1984) 4 SCC 236 , which said : This application for review is nothing short of an abuse of the process of the Court and a waste of time, time which has now become dear and precious because of the daily mounting arrears. No ground for seeking a review is mentioned or even hinted at in the petition. In the first paragraph of the petition it is stated "This is an application for review of the order dated December 9, 1983, whereby this Hon'ble Court was pleased to dismiss the above special leave to appeal (civil). The said order discloses an error apparent on the face of the record as will be clear from perusal of the various grounds and facts mentioned in the petition for special leave to appeal. It is submitted that since the order is unsustainable in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to review he order." In the second paragraph we are told that no detailed grounds have been taken (though in point of fact not a single ground is even mentioned) as limitation is about to expire and "If so advised, further set of grounds would be submitted for the consideration of the Hon'ble Court". The petition was filed on January 9, 1984 and nothing has been done though more than six months have passed since then. The offer to file detailed grounds remained an unredeemed promise. Possibly he was advised to file no further grounds as there was none to be submitted. Good words were not be thrown away after bad. To that extent, we may consider ourselves spared. The offer to file detailed grounds remained an unredeemed promise. Possibly he was advised to file no further grounds as there was none to be submitted. Good words were not be thrown away after bad. To that extent, we may consider ourselves spared. We must however express our deep dissatisfaction and anguish with the indiscriminate manner in which petitions for special leave and petitions for review are being filed. The present application is entirely frivolous and is accordingly dismissed. In Sukh Deo Narain v. State of Rajasthan (1984) 4 SCC 235 , a transfer petition was dismissed by the Apex Court on the ground that the petition was drafted and filed in a most casual and careless manner. Again in Prabodh Verma v. State of U.P. (1984) 4 SCC 251 , the Apex Court observed : 37. The fact that the High Courts and a fortiori this Court have power to mould the reliefs to meet the requirements of each case does not mean that the draftsman of a writ petition should not apply his mind to the proper relief which should be asked for and throw the entire burden of it upon the Court. An advocate owes a duty to his client as well as to the court a duty to his client to give of his best to the case which he has undertaken to conduct for his client and a duty to assist the court to the utmost of his skill and ability in the proper and satisfactory administration of justice. In our system of administration of justice the courts have a right to receive assistance from the Bar and it is the duty of the advocate who drafts a writ petition or any other pleading to ask for appropriate relief.... In paragraph 2, the writ petition is drafted by saying "The school receiving Grant-in-aid from the Government under SSA Scheme and channelised the fund through the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Dadenggre and the Deputy Inspector of Schools used to give approval of the managing Committee of the Schools under his Jurisdiction." This does not make any sense. At the sub-paragraph paragraph 8, it is pleaded that "The House after the Constitution of the New M/C is earnestly requested to the higher Concerning Authority for its necessary Approval and forwarded the Resolution/Proceeding to the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Dadenggre dated 15-03-2009 for its necessary approval". At the sub-paragraph paragraph 8, it is pleaded that "The House after the Constitution of the New M/C is earnestly requested to the higher Concerning Authority for its necessary Approval and forwarded the Resolution/Proceeding to the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Dadenggre dated 15-03-2009 for its necessary approval". At paragraph 10 of the writ petition, it is stated that "That the General public of this areas are not aware of the fact that a new Managing Committee of the school has been constituted by the Respondent No. and the General Public came to know it when they had obtain the document through R.T.I. and the General Public/Parents/Guardian became utter shock and surprised for illegally constituted Managing Committee of the school and being highly aggrieved by the action of the Respondents addressed a representation to the District Mission Coordinator, West Garo Hills, Tura dated 10-08-2009 with a request to kindly into inquire into the matter and suspended the illegal Managing Committee of the school and after canceling the illegal M/C, fresh M/C may be constituted, however, the Respondents has not taken any action in this regard till date though repeated request". These are some of the examples. The writ petition was apparently not even revised before it was filed. There is absolutely no consideration for grammatically correct English. This Court has been left to imagine for itself for understanding the facts of the case of the Petitioner. This is not the first time. The time has come for this Court to take drastic step for ensuring proper and careful drafting of pleadings in this Court. 2. For all the reasons stated in the foregoing, the writ petition cannot be entertained, and is accordingly dismissed. However, to avoid penalizing the Petitioner, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.