ASWINI KUMAR GHOSE Vs. ARABINDO BOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule under Article 226 of the Constitution India was issued at the instance of two petitioners, one of whom may, for all practical purposes, be left out off account. The first petitioner is one Mr. Aswini Kumar Ghose who, besides being an Advocate of this Court entitled to practise both on the Original and the Appellate Side, is also an Advocate of the Supreme Court. The second petitioner is one Jnanendra Nath Chatterjee who is the defendant in a suit pending on the Original Side of this Court and on whose behalf the first petitioner made an attempt to file a "warrant of power and appearance". It is alleged that the said warrant was at first received by an Assistant in the Suit Registry Department, but was subsequently returned by the first respondent, who is the Suit Registrar in the Order Department of the Original Side, with the endorsement that it "must be filed by an Attorney of this Court under High Court Rules and Orders, Original Side and not by an Advocate". That allegation has not been denied.

(2.) The second respondent to the petition is the Registrar, Original Side. Against him it is not alleged that he interfered with the first petitioner in any way in his attempt to file a warrant of appearance on the present occasion, but it is said that he did so on a previous occasion when he refused to accept a warrant filed by the first petitioner in a Company matter and also that he, by certain letters, communicated certain administrative decisions of this Court taken on an application made by another Advocate of the Supreme Court. Those allegations also have not been denied.

(3.) From what has been stated above, it is clear that the real matter sought to be agitated in the present proceeding is the alleged right of the first petitioner to 'act' in the second petitioner's suit and that the latter has joined in the petition only as a person interested in the establishment of that right.