ORDER Anil K. Narendran, J. Unnumbered W.A.No……………..of 2024(Filing No.1010/2024 and Unnumbered W.A.No……………...of 2024 (Filing No.999/2024) These Writ Appeals are filed by the petitioners in W.P.(C).Nos.36325 of 2022 and 35649 of 2022, challenging the common judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 13.03.2024 in those Writ Petitions. Registry noted certain defects and the unnumbered Writ Appeals are listed before this Bench. 1.1. In the Writ Appeal with Filing No.999/2024, arising out of the judgment in W.P.(C) No.36325 of 2022, Registry noted that the exhibits are not legible in the copy of the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 and 2, produced along with the memorandum of Writ Appeal. The appellant re-presented the Writ Appeal after removing, to the extent possible, dark shades on Exts.R1(a) to R1(c). On re-presentation, Registry noted that there are dark shades on the exhibits. It contains a small font, which is not legible. 1.2. In the Writ Appeal with Filing No.1010/2024, arising out of the judgment in W.P.(C) No.35649 of 2022, Registry noted that Exts.R1(a), R1(e) and R1(f) are not legible and readable in the copy of the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 and 2, produced along with the memorandum of Writ Appeal. The appellant re-presented the Writ Appeal stating that since the documents are produced by respondents 1 and 2, along with the counter affidavit filed by them in the Writ Petition, no clear and legible copies of those documents are available with the appellant. Unnumbered W.A.No…………..of 2024 (Filing No.1041/2024) 2. This Writ Appeal arises out of the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 04.06.2024 in W.P.(C) No.25489 of 2020. Registry noted defects in the light of the judgment of a learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.22708 of 2022, that pages 114 and 122 are not legible. The learned counsel for the appellant re-submitted the memorandum of Writ Appeal removing pages 114 and 122, which are not legible, with an endorsement that Exts.R3(d) and R3(i) produced along with the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent are not produced in the said memorandum since it is not readable even when the copy of the counter affidavit filed in the Writ Petition was served on the appellant and the appellant is not relying on those two documents for the adjudication of the Writ Appeal. 2.1. 2.1. By the order dated 23.07.2024 of the Division Bench headed by the Honourable the Acting Chief Justice, this matter is directed to be listed before this Bench, which has the roster to hear JPP (Judicial Practice and Procedure) and to decide on the procedure to be followed by Registry regarding the defects noted in physical copies produced before the Court. Unnumbered W.P.(C) No……………of 2024 (Filing No.27434/2024) 3. This Writ Petition is one filed by respondents 1 to 4 in O.A.No.120 of 2020 on the file of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kochi, challenging Ext.P3 order of the Tribunal dated 05.04.2023, whereby that original application stands allowed in terms of the directions contained paragraph 16 of that order. Registry noted defects and the unnumbered Writ Petition is listed before this Bench. 3.1. One of the defects noted by Registry is that pages 29 to 43 of the memorandum of the Writ Petition, i.e., Annexure A1 copy of RMP proceedings and Annexure A2 copy of the letter dated 08.07.2019 are not legible. Therefore, the dark shade has to be removed, or else a typed copy of the same has to be produced. The learned Central Government Counsel answered that a copy of the memorandum of the original application filed by the applicant before the Tribunal is produced along with the memorandum of the Writ Petition. The Annexures consist of a large number of pages and typing everything is practically impossible. 4. On 29.07.2024, when these matters came up for consideration, this Court noticed that most of the defects noted by Registry in the Writ Petitions and Original Petitions [O.P.((KAT) and O.P.(CAT)] are that the copy of the Government orders or communications produced along with the Writ Petitions/Original Petitions are not legible. The learned counsel for the appellant in the respective Writ Appeals and the Secretary of the Kerala High Court Advocates Association pointed out that most of the documents available on the official website of the concerned Government Departments are not legible. By the order dated 29.07.2024, the learned Senior Government Pleader and also the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India-in-Charge were directed to get instructions on the above aspect. 5. By the order dated 29.07.2024, the learned Senior Government Pleader and also the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India-in-Charge were directed to get instructions on the above aspect. 5. Heard the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India-in-Charge, the learned Senior Government Pleader, the learned counsel for the appellants in the unnumbered Writ Appeals with filing Nos.999/2024 and 1010/2024, the learned counsel for the appellant in unnumbered Writ Appeal with Filing No.1041/2024, the learned Central Government Counsel for the petitioners in the unnumbered Writ Petition with Filing No.27434/2024 and the President of the Kerala High Court Advocates’ Association. 6. The learned Deputy Solicitor General of India-in-Charge, the learned Senior Government Pleader, the learned Central Government Counsel, the learned counsel for the appellants in the respective Writ Appeals and also the President of the Kerala High Court Advocates Association pointed out various issues faced by the litigants and Advocates on account of the defects noted by Registry in relation to documents produced along with Writ Appeals and Original Petitions [O.P.(KAT) and O.P.(CAT)]. In the memorandum of Writ Appeals and Original Petitions filed against the orders passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal and the Central Administrative Tribunal and in the memorandum of Writ Petitions filed against the orders passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, the appellant/petitioner is required to produce a copy of the Writ Petition filed before this Court/the original application filed before the Tribunal, along with a complete set of pleadings. Certain exhibits/annexures, which form part of the pleadings in the Writ Petition or the original application may not be legible. When such documents are produced along with the Writ Appeal/the Original Petition, Registry will note defects. Registry will note defects when such documents are produced as exhibits in the Writ Petitions. Most of such documents are either Government orders or communications. Certain documents may not be legible on account of black shades or markings. The smaller font size in some of such documents makes it not legible. In certain documents, a particular paragraph or page alone may not be legible. If that paragraph or page is not readable, the Advocate or party-in-person may not be in a position to provide a typed copy of the same. Such issues in respect of memorandum of Writ Appeals could be avoided in case the Judges’ papers in the Writ Petition are tagged online, in the case of Writ Petitions filed in online mode. If that paragraph or page is not readable, the Advocate or party-in-person may not be in a position to provide a typed copy of the same. Such issues in respect of memorandum of Writ Appeals could be avoided in case the Judges’ papers in the Writ Petition are tagged online, in the case of Writ Petitions filed in online mode. Such a procedure can be adopted in case the records of the Writ Petition filed in the physical form have already been digitalized. The first and second sets of the memorandum of Writ Petition can be tagged by Registry to the physical copy of the memorandum of Writ Appeal. In cases in which a particular portion or page of the document, which is not legible, is not required for the adjudication of the Writ Appeal or Original Petition [O.P.(KAT) and O.P.(CAT)] and also the Writ Petition filed challenging the order of the Armed Forces Tribunal, instead of insisting the Advocate or the party-in-person to produce a typed copy of that document, the Advocate or the party-in-person can be directed to give an undertaking that the said portion or page of the document, which is not legible, is not required for the adjudication of the matter, which will not relied upon. 7. Chapter III of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971, deals with the form and institution of proceedings. Rule 35 of the said Rules deals with the form of proceedings. In view of the provisions under sub-rule (1) of Rule 35, all petitions, affidavits, memoranda of appeal and other proceedings presented to the court shall be type-written or printed fairly and legibly. In view of the provisions under Rule 50, which deals with the return of papers in improper language, etc., all papers which are couched in improper language or are illegible or are unnecessarily prolix shall be returned for rectification. As per the Explanation to Rule 50, papers written in pencil shall be deemed to be illegible for the purpose of the said Rule, unless they are the originals received by the party. 8. Rule 5 of the Electronic Filing Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021 deals with the general procedure. As per the Explanation to Rule 50, papers written in pencil shall be deemed to be illegible for the purpose of the said Rule, unless they are the originals received by the party. 8. Rule 5 of the Electronic Filing Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021 deals with the general procedure. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 5, whenever an E-Filer intends to file a pleading the same shall be prepared electronically using any word processing software following the format as mentioned in clauses (a) to (e), which deal with ‘paper size’, ‘font and ‘font size’, line spacing, ‘alignment’ and ‘margins’. As per sub-rule (2) of Rule 5, a document which is to be typed in the local language of the Court shall be typed using UNICODE Font 12. In view of the provisions under sub-rule (3) of Rule 5, all pleadings and documents filed in the High Court shall be in PDF or PDF/A format. In view of the provisions contained in sub-rule (5) of Rule 5, where the document is not a text document and has to be enclosed along with the pleadings, the E-Filer shall ensure that the documents filed are an accurate representation of the document and is complete and readable. When the original of the document is not clearly legible, a typed copy of the document duly certified by the Advocate or Party-in-Person shall also be scanned and uploaded along with the original. In view of the provisions under sub-rule (6) of Rule 5, when the document produced along with the pleadings or subsequently is not the original of the document, the Advocate or the Party-in-Person producing the document, shall endorse on the top of the first page of the document, that the document is not the original document and that it is only a certified copy or a photocopy of the original document. Sub-rule (8) of Rule 5 provides that the text document and the scanned documents shall be uploaded in the website of the relevant courts in the manner and method as prescribed by the High Court from time to time. Any electronic filing not made in the manner and method as prescribed by the High Court shall be treated as a defective electronic filing. 9. Any electronic filing not made in the manner and method as prescribed by the High Court shall be treated as a defective electronic filing. 9. Having considered the submissions made at the Bar, in the light of the statutory provisions referred to hereinbefore, we deem it appropriate to issue the following directions; (i) The documents produced along with the memorandum of Writ Petitions, Writ Appeals and Original Petitions, including O.P.(KAT) and O.P.(CAT) should be complete and readable. When the document is not clearly legible a typed copy of the document duly certified by the Advocate or party-in-person, as the case may be, has to be produced along with the original. (ii) When a particular portion or paragraph of the document produced along with the memorandum of Writ Petitions, Writ Appeals and Original Petitions, including O.P.(KAT) and O.P.(CAT), other than the impugned order, is not clearly legible or readable, the Advocate or the party-in-person, as the case may be, has to produce a typed copy of that portion or paragraph, along with the original, for the time being, who shall give an undertaking that a typed copy of that document shall be produced as and when directed by the Court. (iii) When a particular portion or paragraph of the document produced along with the memorandum of Writ Petitions, Writ Appeals and Original Petitions, including O.P.(KAT) and O.P.(CAT), other than the impugned order, is not clearly legible or readable and the Advocate or party-in-person, as the case may be, is not in a position to provide a typed copy of the same, since it is not readable, and the said portion or paragraph of the document is not required for the adjudication of the lis in the Writ Appeal or Original Petitions [O.P.(KAT) and O.P.(CAT)] or the Writ Petition filed challenging the order of the Armed Forces Tribunal, the Advocate or party-in-person, as the case may be, shall give an undertaking that the said portion or paragraph of the document, which is not clearly legible or readable is not required for the adjudication of the lis, which shall not be relied upon. Based on such an undertaking, Registry shall number the matter, subject to the orders to be passed by the concerned Bench on the undertaking so made, after making an endorsement to that effect in the office notes in bold letters and list the matter before the Bench. Based on such an undertaking, Registry shall number the matter, subject to the orders to be passed by the concerned Bench on the undertaking so made, after making an endorsement to that effect in the office notes in bold letters and list the matter before the Bench. (iv) The physical copy of the memorandum of Writ Petitions, Writ Appeals and Original Petitions, including O.P.(KAT) and O.P.(CAT), generated by the e-filing portal shall meet the requirements of clauses (i) to (iii) as above. (v) The Advocates and party-in-person can avail the facilities provided in the e-Seva Kendra, for scanning documents with skew correction, blank page removal, colour balancing and resolution adjustment. They can also avail the built in OCR facilities provided in such scanners. 10. In respect of memorandum of Writ Appeals, the issue relating to the defects noted by Registry could be avoided, in case the Judges’ papers of the Writ Petition are tagged online to the memorandum of Writ Appeal, in the case of a Writ Petition filed in online mode. The first and second sets of the memorandum of Writ Petition can be tagged by Registry to the physical copy of the memorandum of Writ Appeal, in which event the documents which form part of the pleadings in the Writ Petition need not be scrutinised again by the Filing Scrutiny Officers, and the Advocate or the party-in-person, as the case may be, need not produce such documents along with the Writ Appeal. However, this procedure cannot be made applicable in the case of a Writ Appeal filed against any interlocutory orders passed in the Writ Petition, i.e., a Writ Appeal filed during the pendency of the Writ Petition. 11. The Registrar (Computerisation)-cum-Director (IT) to make a proposal before the Computer Committee, in consultation with Registrar (Judicial), on the feasibility of the procedure stated hereinbefore at paragraph 10 in respect of Writ Appeals. List these matters as per roster before appropriate Benches on 09.08.2024.