- (1.)The petitioner who are citizens of India have challenged the constitutionality of the Letters Patent of 1865, the Calcutta High Court (Jurisdictional Limit) Act, 1919 and section 34 (2) (3) of the Advocates Act, 1961 on the ground that they offend the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
(2.)Similar application was filed by the petitioner No.2, Sri E. H. Tippo and another which came for consideration before D. Basu, J. as to its maintainability. The said petition was dismissed on the ground that there were not sufficient averments to show which would render the alleged classification unreasonable and also to show how they were affected by the offending law. It was held that unless such averments were made the opposite parties could not get an opportunity to controvert such allegations or to set up further grounds for which the classification, if any, may be sustained. D. Basu, J. however, permitted them to file fresh application either by themselves or along with others with proper averments. The said order was passed in C.O. 6796 (W) of 1968 on Jan. 25, 1971.
(3.)After that, the present application has been filed on 5.2.71. The petitioner No.1 is an Advocate practicing in this High Court. The petitioner No.2 is a journalist, auditor, printer and publisher of various newspapers - periodicals and a Director of Engineering Times Publication (P) Ltd. having its registered office at 8, Dharmatala Street, Calcutta. They made separate averments of their own while challenging the impugned Acts. According to the petitioner No.1, he is to practice even before the Appellate Side of this High Court and also in the mofossil Court like Alipore. In Alipore Court he can be directly engaged b y the client and he can also receive his fees directly from them. Whereas in the Original Side he can only accept the brief through attorneys and his fees through them. Direct appointment and payment of fees, according to him, is full proof original and impressive and also it is satisfactory. His further contention is that the Original Side's rules, customs and practices affect the petitioner's right to practise, freely and without any hindrance and as such these rules, customs and practice are discriminatory. By way of example he has said that there are two lists (i) one for Original Side (ii) and another for Appellate Side. For this procedure he is to incur unnecessary expenditure for subscribing two lists.