JUDGMENT 1. - Defect is waived. 2. I.A. No.26984/2014 stands disposed. 3. Heard Mr. Mahendra Gaur, petitioner in person. 4. The petitioner, a practicing Advocate of this Court, has, in the instant petition, in essence, endeavoured to enumerate his self comprehended omissions on the part of the administration in appropriately dealing with the complaints/representations about misconduct of the judicial officers and staff as well as unregulated erratic and imperious dealing of the files by the Office, amongst others, in violation of Rule 309 of the Rules of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, 1952 (for short, hereafter referred to as 'the Rules'). 5. According to the petitioner, not only several complaints and representations about misconduct of the judicial officers and staff submitted by him and others have either not been acted upon or action, even if taken, he had not been intimated thereof, referring to a complaint dated 09.09.2010, addressed to the Registrar General of this Court, he has imputed total inaction in connection therewith. He has averred, qua the same, that though he made known to the administration of this Court about the modus operandi of checking/scrutiny of files and deliberate slapping of defects with oblique motives by the concerned staff in derogation of the aforementioned provision of the Rules, no remedial action has been taken due to apathy of the respondents. That he had, in-spite of his efforts, failed to meet the Chief Justice of this Court in this regard, has been mentioned. He has thus been left with no other alternative, but to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court, being disappointed by the failure of the administration of this Court to intervene in the matter of rampant judicial misconduct and corruption due to persistent indifference. The following reliefs have been prayed for:- "a. To take action as per law on the long pending complaint against judicial officers & staff or in the alternative if an action has been taken then the outcome may be conveyed to the petitioner. b. To withdraw the latitude allowed to the staffs to perpetually keep the file in defect and further that respondent no.1 may notify common defects and stamp reports be prohibited from putting any new defect unless the same is notified by the respondent no.1 on the High Court website. b. To withdraw the latitude allowed to the staffs to perpetually keep the file in defect and further that respondent no.1 may notify common defects and stamp reports be prohibited from putting any new defect unless the same is notified by the respondent no.1 on the High Court website. c. That all matters be it with or without defect be placed for first hearing before Hon'ble Court within a week from presentation except bail matters that ought to be listed on the same day or the following day as per rule 309 of High Court Rules." 6. The petitioner has reiterated the pleaded averments in his arguments. 7. A bare perusal of the writ petition, with the documents annexed thereto, does not, in our comprehension, disclose any cause of action for judicial intervention in the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Not only the imputation of inaction on the complaints, referred to by the petitioner, is unfounded, the assertions are noticeably unrestrained and omnibus, which unmistakably demonstrate that the petitioner is either ignorant of the relevant facts or is wholly misinformed thereof. Not only the complaint dated 09.09.2010, does not, per se, attest violation of any Rule or procedural norms in the matter of checking of any application/ petition by the Office before passing the same for listing in a Court of law, the order dated 24.04.2012 passed in S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.3/2012, Annexure P-2 to the writ petition, as well provides an answer to the allegation of contravention of Rule 309 of the Rules. The rest of the averments are general in nature, engendered by personal discontentment, mustered to project his perceived systemic failures. 8. To reiterate, the accusation of inaction on complaints made against the judicial officers or staff, is baseless and actuated by erroneous presuppositions. Needless to say, administration of any autonomous institution, particularly with a constitutional status, has to be essentially guided by canons of objectivity, discipline, discretion and confidentiality, complemented by equanimity and restraint. Personal perceptions of someone beyond the functional framework, can, by no means, necessarily be a credible and authentic guide. Needless to say, administration of any autonomous institution, particularly with a constitutional status, has to be essentially guided by canons of objectivity, discipline, discretion and confidentiality, complemented by equanimity and restraint. Personal perceptions of someone beyond the functional framework, can, by no means, necessarily be a credible and authentic guide. Apart from the fact that no person, lodging a complaint against the judicial officers or staff of this Court, has an unassailable right to be informed of the administrative decisions and steps taken in absence of any legal provision to that effect, the same very often are necessarily confidential in the interest of institutional discipline and probity. The reliefs prayed for as well are too general in nature and founded on inferences, besides transgressing into the model of organisational functioning, prescribed by law. We cannot, but record our disapproval of the initiative taken. 9. This petition, thus, does not merit any further scrutiny and is dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******