A.K. Sinha, J. - (1.) These appeals arise out of an order passed by D. Basu J. in writ jurisdiction of this Court upon an application made by one Bhupati Bhushan Dalal, an Advocate of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India briefly in the following circumstances: The Petitioner who is the Respondent in these three appeals is a practising Advocate enrolled under the Advocates Act, 1961, in this Court and his case is that he is entitled to practise as a matter of right in this Court in all its jurisdiction including all original jurisdiction and, particularly, the ordinary original jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of the Advocates Act which right, it is alleged, includes the right both to act and plead for the suitors. By a pretended rule, namely Rule 22 of Chapter I of the Rules of the Original Side of this Court, he is being prevented from exercising his lawful right to act for suitors in the original jurisdiction of this Court and in appeals from decrees or orders made in such jurisdiction. Still, further case of the Respondent is that although many Advocates, who were previously Attorneys of this Court, even after their enrolment as Advocates, have been allowed to act in the Original Side while other Advocates including the Respondent are not being so allowed to act for suitors in original jurisdiction of this Court and thereby the Respondent has been denied equal protection of law in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. This Court has no jurisdiction under the law to make Rules for its appellate jurisdiction with regard to the right of Advocates to practise or to prevent Advocates for acting for suitors or authorise Attorneys to act in appellate jurisdiction.
(2.) Substantially, in the above background the Respondent has set out a number of grounds challenging the validity of Rule 22 of Chapter I of the Rules of the Original Side of this Court both constitutionally and statutorily and prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Registrar, Original Side, of this Court not to give effect to Rule 22 of Chapter I and also for quashing such Rule and by a writ in the nature of certiorari a declaration that such Rule is void, inoperative and ultra vires the Constitution of India. The Respondent made a further supplementary affidavit at a subsequent date giving, inter alia, further particulars of the Advocates who were previously Attorneys and still being retained as Attorneys in the list of this Court even after their enrolment as Advocates and are still acting as Attorneys for suitors in this Court to show that the Court made a discrimination by such Rules between Advocates and Advocates without any reasonable classification and without nexus between any such Rules and the object sought to be attained. It is also alleged by the Respondent that there is no 'legal, rational or constitutional justification' of the Division of this Court under so -called Original Side and Appellate Side and substantially upon these submissions the Respondent prayed for leave to add another prayer for restraining the administrative authority represented by the Registrar, Original Side, preventing the Advocates from acting for suitors in all jurisdictions including original jurisdiction of this Court and in appeals from orders and decrees made in such original jurisdiction. Then, there was further supplementary affidavit by the Respondent by which he challenged on various grounds a proviso added to Rule 1 of Chapter I of the Original Side Rules on October 3, 1969, and published in Calcutta Gazette dated October 16, 1969. The Respondent also in this affidavit prayed for addition of another prayer by amendment of the original petition, namely, that he was entitled to act for suitors in all jurisdictions of this Court as an Advocate without being required to comply with the Rules made by Rule 1 of Chapter I. The Respondent yet by another affidavit took several additional constitutional grounds affecting his fundamental right in the democratic set up of India by existence of Rule 22 of Chapter I of the Original Side Rules.
(3.) A Rule was issued, firstly, upon the Registrar of the Original Side of this Court but leave was granted to add the Secretary, Incorporated Law Society, Calcutta, the Secretary, Bar Association, Calcutta, and the Secretary Bar Library Club, Calcutta, as opposite parties on the view that they might be affected by the eventual order of this Court and the Rule was directed to be served upon them. Accordingly, they were all the added Respondents Nos. 2 to 4 and the Rule was opposed not only by the Registrar of the Original Side of this Court but also by the Secretaries, Incorporated Law Society and Bar Library Club, the Respondents opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4.;