ORDER 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. The present I.As. have been filled by the petitioners praying for modification of the judgment dated 02.12.2021 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.33158 of 2021. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Paragraph 3 and 10 of the aforementioned judgment dated 02.12.2021 which bears the name of Mr. Sambit Samal, learned Advocate who was appearing on behalf of the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 33158 of 2021 with a negative connotation which raises doubts on the conduct of the counsel. Thus, Mr. Sambit Samal, learned Advocate represented by the present counsel prays for expunging the relevant portions of the aforementioned judgment dated 02.12.2021. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 5. At this juncture, it is apposite to reproduce the relevant portions of judgment dated 02.12.2021 as under: '3. We find from the perusal of the file attached herewith that the same advocate had filed a previous writ petition in the form of Public Interest Litigation being W.P.(C) 16719 of 2020 with different set of petitioners (11 in number) with similar content and seeking identical relief sought herein. We find further from the perusal of the file of the earlier similar Public Interest Litigation-W.P.(C) No.16719 of 2020 attached herewith that the allegation/grievance raised in both the petitions are similar in substance. In fact, it is noticed that the advocate in both the petitions is the same i.e. one Mr. Sambit Samal. What has changed is that the earlier set of petitioners have merely been replaced by another set of petitioners and some minor alterations have been made in the pleadings in the subsequent/instant Writ Petition. The aforesaid writ petition got dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 21.07.2020. This Court has to be satisfied about the credentials of the applicant; prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him and the information furnished being not vague and indefinite. But in the present case, we find it to be a mischievous petition seeking to assail with oblique motives which prevents us from invoking our discretionary writ jurisdiction. xx xx xx 10. We would have ordinarily observed something against the counsel appearing in the case. But in the present case, we find it to be a mischievous petition seeking to assail with oblique motives which prevents us from invoking our discretionary writ jurisdiction. xx xx xx 10. We would have ordinarily observed something against the counsel appearing in the case. However, keeping in view the early stages of his career, we refrain from commenting upon his conduct except to advise him to be careful in future and not be a party to such a litigation initiated by unscrupulous litigants. The Registry is also directed to stringently comply with the rules as indicated hereinabove while dealing with Public Interest Litigations so as to prevent valuable judicial time from being wasted and prevent certain unscrupulous elements from weaponizing petitions in courts of law.' Nowhere, in the entire paragraphs extracted above, there is any mentioning which reflects the petitioners in negative light. 6. The concept of 'Public Interest Litigation' was conceived by Hon'ble Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Rly.) v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 246 , wherein an unregistered association of workers was permitted to institute a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution for redressal of their common grievances. Prior to this, the traditional rule of locus standi was that only a person whose right is affected, alone, can file a petition. However, now the Courts permit 'Public Interest Litigations' instituted at the instances of public spirited citizens for the enforcement of constitutional legal rights. In various judgments passed by the Apex Court, the issue of PILs was widely considered and PILs have since achieved a place of importance in our legal system. Reference may be made to Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v. Abdulbhai Faizullabhai, (1976) 3 SCC 832 , M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1986) 2 SCC 176 , Pt. Parmanand Katara v. Union of India, (1989) 4 SCC 286 , Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241 and Javed v. State of Haryana, (2003) 8 SCC 369 . 7. However, with great power also comes great responsibility. As PILs began gaining acceptance, it was observed by Courts that, many unscrupulous litigants started inappropriately using the wide contours of a Public Interest Litigation to approach the Court without having any semblance of public interest at heart. 7. However, with great power also comes great responsibility. As PILs began gaining acceptance, it was observed by Courts that, many unscrupulous litigants started inappropriately using the wide contours of a Public Interest Litigation to approach the Court without having any semblance of public interest at heart. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R & M Trust v. Koramangla Residents Vigilance Group, (2005) 3 SCC 91 laid down some basic questions to be answered at the time of admitting a PIL petition so as to verify the bonafideness of a person, group or organisation. These questions were enumerated as follows: '(i) Whether the petitioner is bonafide and whether he has/had filed any PIL for any other cause before any competent Court? (ii) Whether the petition filed sounds of bonafide? (iii) No petition was filed earlier for the same cause. (iv) No petition was earlier decided by the Court for the same cause. (v) Whether cause relates to poor and needy persons in general suffering from violation of their fundamental rights? (vi) The petition is not filed for personal gain or private profit or political motive or oblique consideration? (vii) The petition is not vexatious petition under the colour of PIL. viii) The petition is not filed for vindicating any personal grievance. (ix) The petition is not filed with an intention to abuse process of law. (x) Petitioner is not a proxy of others. (xi) The petition is not filed for extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity.' 8. It was the Hon'ble Apex Court's opinion that while genuine and bonafide PIL must be encouraged by all Courts but at the same time, a frivolous PIL which is being filed for extraneous reasons must be discouraged. This has been laid down as the law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its seminal judgment in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, (2010) 3 SCC 402 , wherein the following guidelines have been set forth, which are reproduced below: '(1) The courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations. (2) Instead of every individual Judge devising his own procedure for dealing with the public interest litigation, it would be appropriate for each High Court to properly formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives. (2) Instead of every individual Judge devising his own procedure for dealing with the public interest litigation, it would be appropriate for each High Court to properly formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives. Consequently, we request that the High Courts who have not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within three months. The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to ensure that a copy of the rules prepared by the High Court is sent to the Secretary General of this court immediately thereafter. (3) The courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL. (4) The courts should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL. (5) The courts should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition. (6) The courts should ensure that the petition which involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over other petitions. (7) The Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The Court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation. (8) The Courts should also ensure that the petitions filed by busy bodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for extraneous considerations.' 9. As we now advert to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, it must be borne in mind that the accountability of the legal profession is complex and varied. It transcends and extends beyond the responsibility to the client and the Court. 10. The legal profession is of vital importance not only to the administration of justice but also for the rule of law and good governance. It was once very aptly remarked by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, lawyers are to the civil society what soldiers are to the frontiers of a nation. Marcus Tullius Cicero centuries ago called this profession as a 'noble profession'. Lawyers lend voice to the voiceless, they stand unfazed during social tumult and it is they who draw the chariot of law and justice. 11. Marcus Tullius Cicero centuries ago called this profession as a 'noble profession'. Lawyers lend voice to the voiceless, they stand unfazed during social tumult and it is they who draw the chariot of law and justice. 11. A lawyer has a duty to the Court, a duty to his client and a duty to the profession as well. The observations of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Emperor v. Rajanikanta Bose, ILR (1922) 49 Cal 732, are worth reproducing: 'The practice of the law is not a business open to all who wish to engage in it. It is a personal right or privilege . It is in the nature of a franchise from the State. That you are a member of the legal profession is your privilege; that you can represent your client is your privilege; that you can in that capacity claim audience in Court is your privilege. Yours is an exalted profession in which your privilege is your duty and your duty is your privilege. They both coincide' 12. In a courtroom, neither the view of the author of the judgement nor the pleadings of a counsel are personal. Judicial pronouncements are based on two principles, facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the counsel for both the parties. A remark in the course of such pronouncement pertaining to the counsels only reflects the professional character which is succinctly reflected in the case of R. Muthukrishnan vs The Registrar General of High Court of Judicature at Madras, AIR 2019 SC 849 , wherein theSupreme Court observedthat : 'The judgment rendered by a Judge is based upon thedint of hard work and quality of the arguments that are advanced before him by the lawyers. There is no room for arrogance either for a lawyer or for a Judge.' 13. The observations made in Paragraph 3 and 10 of the judgment dated 02.12.2021 in no way affects the image of the arguing counsel. It was only a note of caution sounded to the counsel so that he may not get involved with unscrupulous litigants. It was merely a reminder on the duty of the counsel to the court and to his profession. The court has, in fact, restrained itself from passing any adverse order considering the petitioner's lesser length of practice at the Bar. 14. It was merely a reminder on the duty of the counsel to the court and to his profession. The court has, in fact, restrained itself from passing any adverse order considering the petitioner's lesser length of practice at the Bar. 14. This court makes it clear that in the absence of any disparaging remark made against the counsel for the petitioners, he should take the observations of this Court in the manner in which it was intended, i.e. as a fillip to mould his legal career in a better way in future. 15. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to accept the prayer of the petitioners made in the I.As. to effect any change in the judgment dated 02.12.2021 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.33158 of 2021. 16. Accordingly, both the I.As. are dismissed.