M.K.Mukherjee, J. - (1.) The short question that seeks an answer in this writ petition is as to whether Section 21E of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 ('Act' for short) which debar Advocates and legal practitioners from appearing, pleading or acting in any capacity on behalf, party before any officer or authority deciding disputes under the provisions of Chapter III of the Act is ultra vires the Constitution of India. question arises in this way.
(2.) The writ petitioners has filed a suit against the private respondent herein in the Second Court of the Munsif at Baruipur for a permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with her peaceful possession respect of certain plots of land and for other consequential reliefs contesting the suit, the private respondents laid a claim as Bargadars in respect of the plots in question. In view of the claim so made, the learned Munsif referred the matter to the authority appointed under Section 18 of the Act as required under Section 21 (3) thereof. Before the said authority, an Advocate appeared on behalf of the writ petitioner and filed power to act on her behalf. The private respondents, however, raised objection to such appointment drawing attention of the authority concerned to Section 21E of the Act and the objection was allowed. Aggrieved thereby petitioner has filed this writ petition.
(3.) Having regard to the fact that the Act has been included in the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution of India, Section 21E and for that matter, the entire Act have become immune from attack on the ground of inconsistency with or abridgement of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed Part III of the Constitution of India. Being a part of a State Act, it therefore, to be ascertained whether Section 21E is vulnerable Article 254(1) of the Constitution of India. Relying upon Chapter IV of the Advocates Act, 1961, particularly Section 30 thereof, it has averred in the writ petition that as the Advocates Act has been enacted by the Parliament under Entry Nos. 77 and 78 of List-1 of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution and as the provisions thereof entitle every Advocate entered in the State roll to practise as of right before, inter alia, any Tribunal or person legally authorised to take evidence, the embargo of Section of the Act, yield place to the former. In support of the above averments the decision of the Supreme Court. in the case of Srinivasa Raghavachar State of Karnataka, reported in (1987) 2 Supreme Court Cases 692 been relied on.;