ORDER : Pradeep Singh Yerur, J. 1. Heard learned counsel Sri.Joshi Shriprasad Jayateerth for the petitioner, learned AGA Sri.Sharad Magadum for respondent Nos.1, 6 to 9, learned counsel Sri.Y.K.Divate for respondent No.2, learned counsel Smt.Archana Magadum for respondent No.3, learned counsel Sri.Rajashekhar Burji for respondent No.4, learned counsel Sri.Rajashekhar Gunjalli for respondent No.5 and the learned counsel Sri.V.M.Sheelvant for respondent No.11. 2. This is a petition filed by the petitioner, who is a practising advocate, registered in the Karnataka State Bar Council. Petitioner is the advocate for the minor victim in Spl.Case No.602/2023. 3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that respondent No.11 has contacted the father of the victim, urging him to turn hostile in the Court at Belagavi. The father of the victim has registered a complaint to that effect against the respondent No.11. The petitioner has advised respondent No.11 not to meddle with the process of trial in the pending criminal proceedings. It is the contention of the petitioner that respondent No.11 is not even a qualified lawyer, she has not cleared her 6 th semester examinations and she is not admitted to the respondent No.10- B. V. Bellad Law College, Belagavi. Therefore, since she has not completed her law course, she would be ineligible to practice in the Courts in Karnataka. 4. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.11 though has not signed the vakalat in the Court, but is regularly appearing and conducting the case without officially signing any documents, thereby is conducting herself as an advocate. Learned counsel also contends that respondent No.11 has not cleared the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) as well, which makes it mandatory for any person practicing as an advocate to appear for a litigant in the Courts. Learned counsel further contends that these facts have been brought to the notice of respondent No.2 i.e., the Bar Association, Belagavi and also respondent Nos.3 and 4, but no action is taken by these respondents. Hence the present petition is filed. 5. There are several other contentions raised and allegations made against respondent No.11 by the petitioner stating that the respondent No.11 has been appearing before several Courts in Belagavi and also several other statutory authorities, police stations to register FIR in the guise of being an advocate. Hence the present petition is filed. 5. There are several other contentions raised and allegations made against respondent No.11 by the petitioner stating that the respondent No.11 has been appearing before several Courts in Belagavi and also several other statutory authorities, police stations to register FIR in the guise of being an advocate. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the guise of being an advocate, respondent No.11 has been threatening the petitioner to register a complaint against the petitioner under several provisions of law including the SC/ST Act and others, thereby falsely portraying herself to be an advocate and misusing the noble profession and is causing hindrance not only to the petitioner and his clients, but to the advocates’ fraternity as a whole. The learned counsel further contends that the inaction of the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 is leading to this situation whereby the persons who are not qualified as advocates are practicing in several places in the State of Karnataka thereby not only causing problems and inconvenience to the Courts, litigants but to the advocates who are genuinely practicing and earning their livelihood, apart from the fact that this profession is a noble profession. Under the circumstances, he has filed the present petition to initiate action against respondent No.11 who is not an eligible person to practice in the State of Karnataka as an advocate from the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4. The representation to that effect has been filed. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.11 has filed a memo along with 2 documents by serving a copy to the counsel for the petitioner. The 1 st document is from the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa. The contents of this document state that respondent No.11 Miss Sonia Venkatesh Dara has successfully passed the LLB degree in the year 2021 and the confirmation letter to that extent is produced at 2 nd document issued by the Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut, which states that respondent No.11 has completed LLB in the 2021. The contents of this document state that respondent No.11 Miss Sonia Venkatesh Dara has successfully passed the LLB degree in the year 2021 and the confirmation letter to that extent is produced at 2 nd document issued by the Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut, which states that respondent No.11 has completed LLB in the 2021. On the basis of these 2 documents, learned counsel for respondent No.11 contends that the claim of ineligibility so made by the petitioner is absolutely false, frivolous and baseless and it is not true to say that respondent No.11 has not passed the law course and is not registered as an advocate in the State of Maharashtra. He further contends that the Bar Council of Maharashtra has given a certificate of practice and has given a letter which is enclosed herein to show she has completed her law degree in the year 2021. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.11 further contend that respondent No.11 is appearing before the Courts in Belagavi district of Karnataka merely to watch the proceedings and she is not appearing as an advocate in any of the matters. She has not signed any vakalat in any of the matters in the State of Karnataka, so therefore when she is not disguising as an advocate, filing vakalat in any of the matters, the submission and contentions of the petitioner is false, frivolous and no material is placed before the Court to substantiate the same. Therefore he contends that there is no bar for a person to appear and watch the proceedings of the Court as the Courts are public places. Under the circumstances, the allegations made cannot be accepted and it is contrary to the documents now produced with regard to respondent No.11 having completed LLB degree in the year 2021 from Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut and the Bar Council of Maharashtra having given the certificate of practice from the State of Maharashtra and Goa. 8. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3- Karnataka State Bar Council has filed a reply contending that respondent No.11 is not enrolled as advocate in the Karnataka State Bar Council. 9. 8. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3- Karnataka State Bar Council has filed a reply contending that respondent No.11 is not enrolled as advocate in the Karnataka State Bar Council. 9. Learned counsel representing the respondent No.4 Sri.Rajashekhar Burji subscribe to the contention that a person in order to practice in the Courts, as an advocate, is required to pass the law course and thereafter to practice as an advocate, is required to pass the All India Bar Examination. He also deprecates practice of fake advocates, fake persons who are creating disharmony in the society and cheating the public and litigants. It is further contended that all steps are taken to see that fake and incompetent, illegal, ineligible persons are not permitted to practice in different states and in the entire country. Steps are taken by issuing several notices and communications to several State Bar Councils to initiate action against such illegal, ineligible persons practicing in the guise of advocates. The State Bar council has also issued similar note to the several Advocates’ Association of the State of Karnataka to report any such advocate practising in the Court without clearing the All India Bar Examination. 10. I have heard the learned counsels for all the parties. 11. The primary contention of the petitioner in this case is that the respondent No.11 is ineligible person to practice as an advocate in the State of Karnataka and that she is misusing this status by falsely depicting herself to be an advocate, despite having not cleared LLB course and without registering herself in the Karnataka State Bar Council as a practicing advocate. To that extent the representations have been filed to respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4. He further states that the prayers made by the petitioner with regard to Prayers B, C & D need not be considered by this Court. It is needless to state that this Court is not a fact finding Court and this Court cannot conduct a roving inquiry under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain these kind of prayers in a writ petition. Nonetheless, this Court appreciates the intention of the petitioner to see that ineligible, illegal persons do not practice in the State of Karnataka and their actions bring disrepute to the legal profession so also causing inconvenience to be litigants as well as to the genuine practicing advocates. Nonetheless, this Court appreciates the intention of the petitioner to see that ineligible, illegal persons do not practice in the State of Karnataka and their actions bring disrepute to the legal profession so also causing inconvenience to be litigants as well as to the genuine practicing advocates. The petitioner has made a bold attempt to curb ineligible and non-registered persons to practice as advocates in the State of Karnataka. 12. This petition is concerned with the manner in which certain illegal, ineligible persons are practicing not only in the State of Karnataka but also in other parts of the Country without being eligible and qualified as an advocate by false methods. 13. Be that as it may. In view of the counsel for respondent No.11 having placed certain material to show that respondent No.11 has cleared the law course from Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut and the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa having issued the certificate of practice confirming that she has cleared her LLB course, this Court cannot go into further details as to whether the same is proper, appropriate, genuine as the said aspect will have to be considered by the Bar Council by calling upon the respondent No.11 to produce such documents. It is for the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 to satisfy itself with regard to the genuineness, veracity or otherwise of the respondent No.11 having cleared and passed her LLB course, whether she is registered in the State Bar Council in Karnataka or elsewhere and whether she has cleared the All India Bar Examination which would permit her to practice as an advocate in the country. This exercise cannot be conducted by this Court. It will have to be conducted by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 while considering the representation of the petitioner by way of an enquiry. 14. This exercise cannot be conducted by this Court. It will have to be conducted by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 while considering the representation of the petitioner by way of an enquiry. 14. It is needless to mention that if a person wants to present herself/himself before the Court and watch the proceedings in any of the Courts or judicial proceedings, he/she shall be at liberty to do so as there is no bar or restriction in any law which is brought to the notice of this Court, as the Courts are public places, any individual is permitted to observe and even make a representation either himself or party-in-person or otherwise but if a person has to appear as an advocate, then he requires to fulfil the mandatory terms and conditions and regulations of the Advocates Act, and the Rules and Regulations of the State Bar Council and the Bar Council of India including passing the All India bar Examination. 15. Under the circumstances, I pass the following: ORDER i. This petition is partly allowed. ii. Writ of mandamus is issued with a direction to the respondent Nos.2. 3 and 4 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 09.08.2024. iii. The respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 shall consider the representation of the petitioner and pass suitable orders, expeditiously, in accordance with law. iv. It is also directed that respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 shall take all necessary steps to prevent illegal, ineligible persons practicing in the several Bar Associations, in the respective State Bar Associations and other areas of practice, strictly in accordance with law and the Advocates Act. v. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.