Tarun Kumar Basu, J. - (1.) A short but interesting question of law arises in the instant case. The facts may be briefly noted. The petitioner Ajit Kumar Das is an Advocate enrolled under the Advocates Act 1961. He usually practices in connection with the compensation cases in the office of the District Compensation Officer, Midnapore as well as the offices of the Sub-Divisional Compensation Officers in the District of Midnapore. These compensation case arise under the provisions of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act. 1953 for payment of ad- interim as well as final compensation on account of acquisition of the estates of the erstwhiles intermediaries;
(2.) In connection with his professional work he files vakalatnama on behalf of his client, identifies his client as also withdraws compensation on behalf of his clients on the basis of properly executed Vokalatnama. It appears that once certain proceedings were started in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Midnapore on a complaint made against the petitioner and others but by an order dated the 21st February. 1973, six years after the case was instituted the petitioner and others were discharged as the Investigating officer could not prove anything against them.
(3.) In the present rule, the petitioner has made certain grievances with regard to his right of filing Vokalatnama, withdrawing Compensation on behalf of his clients on the basis thereof and also with regard to identifying his client before the appropriate authorities in connection with the withdrawal of the ad-interim or final compensation. At the time of the rule nisi was issued, the petitioner complained that he was being prevented from doing the aforesaid acts which according to him are an integral part of his profession as an Advocate.;