IMPORTANT POINT
Conduct of an Advocate in not responding to request of Registry to rectify defect in writ petition filed by him and letting petition to be dismissed, amounts to misconduct and deficiency of legal service.

D.B. Shylendra Kumar, J.—There is no dearth of half-baked, incompetent, irresponsible Advocates in legal profession. It appears, their number is increasing rather than decreasing. It is high time the professional body Bar Council, wakes up from its slumber, take a deep breath, examine the level of professional standards and quality of the members practicing the noble legal profession and ensure measures to make available legal services to the community in a proper manner; that quality legal service is made available to the members of the public and the society. For such purpose it may not be sufficient if cosmetic changes are attempted at the entry levels but it is equally important that persons who are in the legal profession and those who might have got in earlier are also possessed with sufficient legal competence and if it is found that the legal equipment and skills of the members of the bar, who had got in earlier is inadequate and needs improvement make efforts and take necessary measure, to achieve this object, when alone can it be said that the Bar Council having the responsibility of maintaining professional standards monitoring the conduct of the members of the legal profession is fulfilling the purpose and object of the law, i.e., the Advocates Act, 1961, as a Statutory Authority.

2. This writ petition, presented before this Court on 19.1.2011, was found to have been presented in a most defective manner by the registry of this Court on the scrutiny of the writ petition papers and had notified the same on the notice board of the Registry for the rectification of the following defects.

“1. Brief facts and WP Schedule to be furnished as per Rule 2 (3b) of Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977.

2. Para No. to be corrected as per Rules of WP Rules.

3. Annexure not forth coming (check later and prayer to be specific).

4. Para No. to be corrected, Memo to be stated.

5. Check later as per Rule 9 of WP Rule 5.

6. Check later as per Rule 6 of WP Rules.

7. Address of RI incomplete.

8. Annexure not forth coming (check later).

9. Advocate names below their signature to be complied with.

9A. Annexure not stated pagination left blank as per Rule2 of Chapter XII of High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959.

10. Schedule to be furnished.

11. Annexures not forth coming.

12. Prayer and RP to be made more clear by stating Annexures Date and No.

13. Classification to be check later (Annexures not forth coming)”.

3. Even after expiry of 42 days from the notification, the Counsel for the petitioner having not rectified, the matter had been listed before this Court for further orders on 28.6.2011 and this Court granted one more weeks time for compliance. The matter was yet again on 19.8.2011, and on that day though the matter was called twice during the course of the day, there was no representation for the petitioner. However, one more week’s time was granted for rectification and the Registry was directed to list the matter for preliminary hearing if defects are removed and otherwise for dismissal on 25.8.2011. This is the background in which petition is now listed before this Court.

4. A perusal of the writ petition, which is as under:

“Memorandum of writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India The petitioner above named respectfully submit as follows:

1. The address of the parties for the purpose of service of summons. Notice etc is as shown in the cause title and the appellants may also be served through their Counsel Rupa B.P. Advocate, No.38/S, 4th Block, 6th Main, Rajajinagar Malleswaram, Bangalore-560010

Brief facts of the cases

2. The petitioner is in absolute possession of the schedule property measuring 4.22 guntas for more than 50 years, and is an agriculturist. The petitioner submits that the respondents 3 and 4 are also the neighbours of the petitioner and they also are farmers and the respondents 3 and 4 filed an application for grant of land along with the petitioner before the resp