DHIRENDRA NATH ROY Vs. SATYA SARAN MITRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Rule is against the order of the learned Additional District Magistrate, 24-Parganas, purported to have been passed under section 36 of the Legal Practioners Act, sending back the records of cases in which the different opposite parties were involved to the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Bongaon, for further enquiry.

(2.) IT appears that on 22-11-58 the Muktears' Bar Association, Bongaon at a meeting convened specially for the purpose, considered the report of the Secretary of the said Association and being satisfied thereby, unanimously passed a resolution declaring the seven opposite parties, amongst others, as touts. In pursuance of the said resolution a proceeding under section 36 of the Legal Practitioners Act was drawn up against the opposite parties under the order of the Additional District Magistrate, 24-Parganas, who sent the matter to Sri S. K. Chakravartti, Magistrate, 1st class, for holding enquiries under sub-section (2a) of section 36 of the Legal Practitioners Act. In connection with the said enquiry several witnesses were examined by the said Magistrate and being satisfied with the evidence produced before him in the enquiry, he recommended that the names of the opposite parties be included in the list of touts and in due course he sent the report of the enquiry to the Additional District Magistrate.

(3.) THE learned Additional District Magistrate previously dropped the proceedings on 14-3-60 on the ground that the said resolution of the Bar Association was not a valid resolution, not having been confirmed in subsequent meetings. Against the said order of the Additional District Magistrate this Court was moved under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India and a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Mitter and Sen, JJ. , made the rule absolute holding that the resolution, even though not confirmed by subsequent resolutions, was a good resolution and further holding that the learned Additional District Magistrate was is error in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner and in dropping the proceedings. He was, therefore, directed by this Court to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law.