LALTA PRASAD Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition u/Art. 226 of the Constitution which arises in the following circumstances.

(2.) The Petitioner was practising as a Mukhtar and Revenue Agent at Fatehgarh in the district of Farrukhabad. 11 persons who were represented to be Raghunath, Swaroop, Chunni, Baldeo, Bhupal, Malkhan, Narain, Gauri, Raghu, Charna and Ram Nath were brought to him by two persons, Salar Khan and Nathu Khan, who were known to him. They executed a Muhktarnama in his favour. The vakalatnama was attested by Salar Khan and Nathu Khan who, it is said, identified them to be persons they purported to be. Armed with that vakalatnama the Petitioner as a Mukhtar applied for the withdrawal of some compensation money that was payable to the 11 persons. After receiving the money he paid it to the persons concerned after obtaining formal receipts from them. At the time of the payment of the amount also the persons concerned were identified by Salar Khan and Nathu Khan. It subsequently transpired that the 11 persons were not really the persons they claimed to be and had personated the real persons bearing those names with the help of Salar Khan and Nathu Khan. Salar Khan was in that connection prosecuted also for cheating. When the real persons appeared and claimed the money the Petitioner paid the amount to them again, this time from his own pocket. A report about this incident having been made to the Sub Divisional Magistrate of Fatehgarh, he under the directions of the Collector of the District served a charge sheet on the Petitioner in which he was charged with having been guilty of professional misconduct. The charge had three counts;-(1) that Sri Lalta Prasad had presented the Mukhtarnama on behalf of Raghunath, Sarupa, Chunni, Baldeo, Bhoopal, Malkhan, Narain, Gauri, Raghu, Bhajanlal and Chunna although he had no proper authority for the same and thus he obtained payments of compensation money in an unauthorised manner which was a grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duties, (2) that Sri Lalta Prasad did not take proper steps to get the executants of Mukhtarnamas properly identified and thus he permitted the execution of false Mukhtarnamas signed by some persons who falsely impersonated and signed on behalf of Raghunath and others and thus he committed a grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty, and (3) that Sri Lalta Prasad had been keeping the said compensation money in his custody for an unduly long period and without proper authority, which was also a grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty.

(3.) In answer to the charges the Petitioner submitted his explanation in which he denied having committed professional misconduct and pleaded that he had acted bona fide throughout but had been misled by Salar Khan and Nathu Khan. He also said that having learn about the mistake he had paid the money to the persons who were really entitled to the same. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, however, came to the conclusion that the Petitioner was guilty of professional misconduct and recommended that necessary steps as laid down in Sec. 23 of the Legal Practitioner's Act be taken & recommendation be made to the Board of Revenue, UP, Lucknow for dismissing the petitioner for professional misconduct. This recommendation was made to the Collector who with his own endorsement thereon sent it to the Commissioner. The Commissioner agreed with the recommendations of the Collector and sent it on to the Board of Revenue. The Board by its order dated 18-3-60 held that the Petitioner was guilty of professional misconduct and was further of the opinion that it was a fit case in which the extreme penalty Under Sec. 40 of the Legal Practitioner's Act should be imposed on him. It, therefore, dismissed him as a Revenue Agent and debarred him from practising in that capacity. A copy of the order was in due course forwarded to this Court and acting Under Sec. 39 of the Legal Practitioner's Act a Bench of this Court declared that the Petitioner was to be deemed to be debarred as a Mukhtar also. The Petitioner aggrieved by the order of the Board of Revenue has filed this petition & seeks the quashing of its decision by a writ of certiorari on the ground that the view it took about the acts of the Petitioner amounting to professional misconduct was an apparent error in law. After the petition had been filed the Joint Registrar of this Court, who had informed the Petitioner about the order of this Court passed Under Sec. 39 of the Legal Practitioners' Act, was added as a party and an additional prayer was made for a writ of certiorari or a writ or direction for quashing the administrative order No. 17737 dated 3-12-60 and the order dated 9-12-60, or to grant such other and further order or direction as this Honourable Court may be pleased to make.'