- (1.) AJAI Singh has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against the order of the res pondent District Magistrate, Pilibhit, dated September, 27, 1969, declaring the petitioner to be a tout and banning his entry in the compund of the collecto-rate.
(2.) IT may be stated at the out set that no counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent. Therefore, the facts stated in the petition shall have to be accepted as correct. The petitioner at the material time was a clerk of an Advocate pra ctising at Pilibhit. He has been work ing as a clerk with legal practitioners since 1964. On September 6, 1968 cer tain members of the Collectorate Bar Association, Pilibhit, passed a resolution recommending to the District Magistrate Pilibhit to declare the petitioner and one other person as touts. The District Magistrate on the receipt of a copy of the resolution issued a notice under Sec tion 36 of the Legal Practitioners Act on January 10, 1969 requiring the petitioner to show cause within ten days as to why his name should not be included in the list of touts. This notice was serv ed on the petitioner on February 19, 1969. The petitioner submitted a writ ten statement on March 22, 1969, in which he requested the District Magis trate. Pilibhit to grant him personal hearing. He also requested the District Magistrate to permit him to cross- exa mine the witnesses and to produce evi dence in defence. The District Magis trate transferred the proceedings to the Sub-divisional Magistrate Pilibhit for en quiry. The Sub-divisional Magistrate conducted the enquiry and sent a re port to the District -Magistrate to the effect that the petitioner be declared a tout.
(3.) THE petitioner's- contention is that the District Magistrate did not grant him a personal hearing nor did he permit him to cross-examine the wit nesses and nor indeed did he give him an opportunity to produce evidence in defence. Similar allegations have been made by the petitioner against the Sub- Divisional Magistrate. According to the petitioner the Sub-Divisional Magistrate conducted the enquiry behind his back. The evidence of the witnesses was never recorded in his presence. In fact the petitioner alleged that he was not aware of the enquiry conducted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate so that he had no chance to appear before him and to demand a personal hearing or to pro duce evidence in defence.;