Judgment :- 1. There is no dearth of half-baked, incompetent, irresponsible advocates in legal profession. It appears, their number is increasing rather than decreasing! It is high time the professional body – Bar Council wakes up from its slumber take a deep breath, examine the level of professional standards and quality of the members practicing the noble legal profession and ensure measures to make available legal services to the community in a proper manner; that quality legal service is made available to the members of the public and the society. For such purpose it may not be sufficient if cosmetic changes are attempted at the entry levels but it is equally important that persons who are in the legal profession and those who might have got in earlier are also possessed with sufficient legal competence and if it is found that the legal equipments and skills of the members of the bar, who had got in earlier is inadequate and needs improvement made efforts and take necessary measure, to achieve this object, when alone can it be said that the Bar council having the responsibility of maintaining professional standards monitoring the conduct of the members of the legal profession is fulfilling the purpose and object of the law. i.e., The Advocate Act, as a Statutory Authority. 2. This writ petition, presented before this court on 19-1-2011, was found to have been presented in a most defective manner by the registry of this court on the scrutiny of the writ petition papers and had notified the same on the notice board of the Registry for the rectification of the following defects: “1. Brief facts &b WP Schedule to be furnished as per Rule 2(3b) of WP Rules 2. Para No. to be corrected as per Rule 2(2) of W.P. Rules 3. Annexure not forth coming (check later, & Prayer to be specific) 4. Para no to be corrected. Memo to be stated 5. Check later as per Rule 9 of W.P. Rules 6. Check later as per Rule 6 of W.P. Rules 7. Address of R1 incomplete 8. Annexure not forth coming (check later) 9. Annexures not stated pagination left blank as per Rule 2 of Chapter XII of H.C. Rules 10. Schedule to be furnished 11. Annexures not forth coming 12. Prayer & RP to be made clear by stating Annexures Date & No 13. Address of R1 incomplete 8. Annexure not forth coming (check later) 9. Annexures not stated pagination left blank as per Rule 2 of Chapter XII of H.C. Rules 10. Schedule to be furnished 11. Annexures not forth coming 12. Prayer & RP to be made clear by stating Annexures Date & No 13. Classification to be check later (Annexures not forth coming)” 3. Even after expiry of 42 deays from the notification, the counsel for the petitioner having not rectified, the matter had been listed before this court for further orders on 28-6-2011 and this court granted one more week’s time for compliance. The matter was yet again on 19-8-2011, and on that day though the matter was called twice during the course of the day, there was no representation for the petitioner. However, one more week’s time was granted for rectification and the Registry was directed to list the matter for preliminary hearing if defects are removed and otherwise for dismissal on 25-8-2011. This is the background in which petition is now listed before this court. 4. A perusal of the writ petition, which is as under: “Memorandum of writ petition under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India. The petitioner above named respectfully submit as follows: 1. The address of the parties for the purpose of service of summons. Notice, etc. is as shown in the cause title and the Appellants may also be sserved through their counsel RUPA B. P. Advocate. No.38/S. 4th Block 6th Main Rajajinagar, Malleswaram, Bangalore-560010. Brief Facts of the Case: 2. The Petitioner is in absolute possession of the schedule property measuring 4.22 guntas for more than 50 years, and is an agriculturist. The Petitioner submits that the Respondents 3 and 4 are also the neighbors of the Petitioner and they also are farmers and the Respondents 3 and 4 filed an application for grant of land along with the Petitioner before the Respondent No.2. 3. The Petitioner submits that Respondent No.2, without proper verification had rejected the application made by the Petitioner, on the other hand, the Respondent No.2 had allowed and granted lands in favour of the Respondent No.3 and 4. Hence, this petition. GROUNDS: 4. The Petitioner submits that the Respondent No.2 had failed to not that there has been no proper verification and inspection of the property being cultivated by the Petitioner for more than 50 years. Hence, this petition. GROUNDS: 4. The Petitioner submits that the Respondent No.2 had failed to not that there has been no proper verification and inspection of the property being cultivated by the Petitioner for more than 50 years. 5. The Judgment and Decree of the Court below is opposed to the Principles of Natural Justice and is not based on the proper appreciation of evidence. 6. The Judgment and Decree is against the law laid down by the High Court of Karnataka in a suit for Permanent Injunction based on lawful possession and legal title. 7. The Judgment and Decree of the Court below is otherwise opposed to the probalities of the case and suffers from legal infirmities and cannot be sustained. 8. Viewed from any angle, the Judgment and Decree has led to miscarriage of justice. Prayer Wherefore, the PETITIONER prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to order for: a) To grant such other Writ, direction or relief/s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice and equity. b) To grant such other Writ, direction or relief/s as this High Court deems fit in the interest of justice and equity. Bangalore Dated: 19.01.2011 ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER ADDRESS FOR SERVICE: Rupa, B.P. Advocate No.38/S 4th Block, 6th Main Rajajinagar Bangalore-560 010.” isnothing short of a mockery of writ jurisdiction of this court. While it is rather difficult to understand what is the grievance of the petitioner, for what cause of action has given occasion to present this petition. A perusal of the writ petition, what one can vaguely gather is that the writ petitioner claims to be in possession of an extent of 4.22 guntas of land [as to where, God only should help this court] and with the respondents 3 and 4 are neighbours of petitioner and the second respondent tahsildar without proper verification had rejected the application made by the petitioner, whereas on the other hand he had allowed like applications made by respondents 3 and 4 therefore this petition is presented. 5. The prayer column only shows that it is the responsibility of this court to issue appropriate writ and to grant such relief. Unfortunately for the petitioner, his counsel has not enabled his court to properly understand the case of the petitioner, leave alone grant any relief. Writ petition only deserves to be dismissed. 6. 5. The prayer column only shows that it is the responsibility of this court to issue appropriate writ and to grant such relief. Unfortunately for the petitioner, his counsel has not enabled his court to properly understand the case of the petitioner, leave alone grant any relief. Writ petition only deserves to be dismissed. 6. It is open to the petitioner to proceed against his lawyer if he has suffered any loss or damage due to the dismissal of this writ petition attributable to the deficiency of legal service rendered by the lawyer by seeking relief before the appropriate forum. 7. Registrar General of this court is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Secretary. Karnataka State Bar Council to take commensurate action against the learned counsel for the petitioner who failed to make his appearance before this court, though the matter had been listed before this court on several occasions, who had not even presented the petition in a proper manner and has also failed to rectify the defects and make the petition presentable. 8. Writ petition dismissed.