DEVATA PRASAD SINGH CHAUDHURI Vs. HONBLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE JUDGES OF THE PATNA HIGH COURT
LAWS(SC)-1961-8-18
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PATNA)
Decided on
August 29,1961
DEVATA PRASAD SINGH CHAUDHURI
Appellant
VERSUS
HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND JUDGES OF PATNA HIGH COURT
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
ASWINI KUMAR GHOSE INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY CALCUTTA HIGH COURT INTERVENERS VS. ARABINDA BOSE [DISTINGUISHED]Cited Judgements :-
K L REKHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2007-12-176] [REFERRED]TWENTYFOUR PARGANAS LAWYERS CLERKS ASSOCN VS. STATE [LAWS(CAL)-1984-4-12] [REFERRED TO]
N K BAJPAI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2012-3-43] [REFERRED TO]
BHUPATI BHUSAN DALAL VS. REGISTRAR OF THE ORIGINAL SIDE [LAWS(CAL)-1971-1-22] [REFERRED TO]
SHAJI POULOSE VS. INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2024-5-81] [REFERRED TO]
PARMESHWAR PRASAD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(PAT)-1970-6-4] [REFERRED TO]
A GIRIDHARILAL VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-1984-8-28] [REFERRED TO]
REGISTRAR OF THE ORIGINAL SIDE OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT VS. BHUPATI BHUSHAN DALAL [LAWS(CAL)-1973-8-23] [REFERRED TO]
MEGHANA A P DESAI AND VIKAS VITHAL DESAI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-1986-8-25] [REFERRED TO]
KOTA CO OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL BANK LIMITED VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2002-8-23] [REFERRED TO]
P.C. JAIN VS. UOI [LAWS(DLH)-2009-4-258] [REFERRED TO]
LEAAP FORWARDERS P LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS [LAWS(APH)-2001-4-21] [REFERRED TO]
ARUNAVA GHOSH VS. BAR COUNCIL OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-1995-9-12] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
S. K. Das, J. -
(1.)This is a writ petition on behalf of the Bihar State Mukhtars' Association, Patna and the Vice-President and the General Secretary thereof. The petition has been heard ex parte as there has been no appearance on behalf of the Chief Justice and Judges of the Patna High Court who were cited as respondents to the petition.
(2.)The petitioners contend that certain rules of the Patna High Court made as far back as 1922 under S. 11 of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879 (Act XVIII of 1879), hereinafter referred to as the Act, in respect of the functions, powers and duties of Mukhtars practising in the subordinate Courts are now invalid and void, because they contravene the fundamental right of the petitioners guaranteed under Art. 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India and are not saved by cl. (6) thereof. The petitioners have, in particular, challenged the validity of R. 2 made by the said High Court under S. 11 of the Act and incorporated in Chap. III, Part VII of the General Rules and Circular Orders of the High Court of Judicature at Patna (Civil), 1922. The petitioners pray that an appropriate writ, direction or order be issued by this Court declaring that R. 2 aforesaid is unconstitutional and therefore, void and inoperative. We shall presently read the rule; but before we do so a few facts which are not in dispute may be stated.
(3.)The petitioners state that the Bihar State Mukhtars' Association was formed some 30 years back with the object of generally protecting the interests of the Mukhtars in the State of Bihar practising in the Courts subordinate to the High Court of Patna within the meaning of S. 8 of the Act. At its various annual conferences the said Association passed resolutions to move the High Court for the removal of the restriction imposed by R. 2 aforesaid on the right of Mukhtars practising in subordinate civil Courts. The High Court did not remove the restriction. On July 27, 1958 at an emergent Executive Committee meeting of the Association it was resolved to move the Supreme Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution. The present writ petition has been filed in pursuance of that resolution.
(2.)The petitioners contend that certain rules of the Patna High Court made as far back as 1922 under S. 11 of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879 (Act XVIII of 1879), hereinafter referred to as the Act, in respect of the functions, powers and duties of Mukhtars practising in the subordinate Courts are now invalid and void, because they contravene the fundamental right of the petitioners guaranteed under Art. 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India and are not saved by cl. (6) thereof. The petitioners have, in particular, challenged the validity of R. 2 made by the said High Court under S. 11 of the Act and incorporated in Chap. III, Part VII of the General Rules and Circular Orders of the High Court of Judicature at Patna (Civil), 1922. The petitioners pray that an appropriate writ, direction or order be issued by this Court declaring that R. 2 aforesaid is unconstitutional and therefore, void and inoperative. We shall presently read the rule; but before we do so a few facts which are not in dispute may be stated.
(3.)The petitioners state that the Bihar State Mukhtars' Association was formed some 30 years back with the object of generally protecting the interests of the Mukhtars in the State of Bihar practising in the Courts subordinate to the High Court of Patna within the meaning of S. 8 of the Act. At its various annual conferences the said Association passed resolutions to move the High Court for the removal of the restriction imposed by R. 2 aforesaid on the right of Mukhtars practising in subordinate civil Courts. The High Court did not remove the restriction. On July 27, 1958 at an emergent Executive Committee meeting of the Association it was resolved to move the Supreme Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution. The present writ petition has been filed in pursuance of that resolution.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.