PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

Oral

1. Petitioner No.1, who appears in person, has been heard.

2. The prayers made in the writ petition read as under:-

“(a) To issue a writ of Mandamus to Respondent No.3 (Registrar of the Hon’ble High Court, acting as Secretary of its Rules Committee) to include in the Agenda of the very next meeting of the Rules Committee of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court a proposal for the amendment of the Delhi High Court Rules by way of incorporating detailed instructions within the body of the Rules on how vakalatnamas are to be executed, especially those relating to juristic entities.

(b) To issue a writ of Mandamus to Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 (acting through themselves or through their subordinate officers) that pending translation of prayer (a) into the relevant incorporation of the same into the body of the Delhi High Court Rules, to object to the filing any motion by any party in judicial proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court if the vakalatnama accompanying it has not been executed by the party concerned in the manner laid down in law when read with the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh and Anr. (AIR 2006 SC 269), and to return the same and not to post it before the Hon’ble court concerned till the deficiencies are rectified.

(c) To issue a writ of Mandamus to Respondent No.2 (acting through themselves or through their subordinate officers) that pending translation of prayer (a) into the relevant incorporation of the same into the body of the Delhi High Court Rules, to circulate instructions similar to (b) to all the Courts subordinate to the administrative charge of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court.

(d) Award costs for this petition.

(e) And pass such other order(s) or direction(s) or further orders or directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.”

3. Eschewing reference to the prolix pleadings in the writ petition, crystallizing the same, the grievance of the petitioners is to the casual manner in which vakalatnamas and/or authorization are being filed by learned Members of the Bar before various Courts, Tribunals and Authorities. The petitioners have highlighted instances of confusion and the process of the law being abused or trial being delayed on account of clumsy filing of vakalatnamas by learned Members of the Bar.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents do not dispute the importance of a vakalatnama filed by Members of the Bar authorizing them to act and plead on behalf of their clients.

5. Indeed, Order III of the Code of Civil Procedure contains the legislative provisions how appearance have to be entered on behalf of the parties by recognized agents or by their counsel.

6. Pertaining to juristic persons, Order 29 and Order 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure further guides, as to in what manner living persons can act on behalf of corporate and juristic entities.

7. Fortunately for us, in the decision reported as AIR 2006 SC 269 Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh & Anr., in Para 21 of the said decision, the Supreme Court noted as many as 9 deficiencies noticed by their Lordships of Supreme Court, in vakalatnama filed by learned Members of the Bar.

8. The complication at later stages which can be avoided by a timely check and proper verification of vakalatnamas have been noted by their Lordships.

9. Para 21 of the decision in Uday Shanker’s case (Supra) reads as under :-

“21. We may at this juncture digress and express our concern in regard to the manner in which defective Vakalatnamas are routinely filed in courts. Vakalatnama, a species of Power of Attorney, is an important document, which enables and authorizes the pleader appearing for a litigant to do several acts as an Agent, which are binding on the litigant who is the principal. It is a document which creates the special relationship between the lawyer and the client. It r