SUDHANGSHU MOHAN DUTTA Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE DIBRUGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Art.226 of the Constitution directed against an order passed by the District Judge, Dibrugarh declaring the petitioner as a tout, in exercise of power under S.36 of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879. The petitioner has also questioned the legality and validity of the proceedings connected therewith.

(2.) The petitioner states that he practiced as a pleader's clerk under several renowned lawyers of Dibrugarh. In 1975 as well he worked under Sri Biman Barua, Advocate as his clerk and the Registered No. of his Card was 39. The petitioner states categorically that it was the prevalent practice to submit the card of the Pleaders clerk to the Secretary of Dibrugarh Bar Association accompanied by renewal fee of Rs. 6/-. The renewal was the matter of course. The competent authority after such renewal used to return the card to the Secretary, Bar Association who kept it for some time before handing over the same to the clerk. The petitioner has consistently stated that he submitted his Card along with due renewal fee to the Secretary, Dibrugarh Bar Association for its renewal for 1976. The petitioner claimed that he was never informed that his prayer for renewal was rejected or that his card not forwarded to the competent authority for any reasonable cause. But on 1-11-1976, a special resolution was taken by learned members of the Bar Association requesting the District Judge, Dibrugarh, to declare as many as 31 persons as touts u/s. 36 of 'the Act' as they loitered in the court premises and dealt with the litigant public without any authority or licence. Coming to know about the allegation the petitioner by his representation dated 5-11-1976 complained to the District Judge that he had submitted his Card for renewal with renewal fee of Rs. 6/- to the Secretary, Bar Association, but it was withheld by the Secretary. On 8th November, 1976 he wrote a letter to the Secretary, Bar Association stating that he had already submitted the Card with renewal fee for its renewal but unfortunately it was not forwarded, so the Card may be forwarded and regularised. It appears that on receipt of the Resolution of the Bar Association, the District Judge decided to hold an enquiry and referred the matter to the then Assistant District and Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh. Learned Assistant District Judge observed that before holding a person to be a tout some legal evidence was necessary and an enquiry should be made after granting opportunity to the person concerned. Thereafter, it appears, the matter was sent to Mr. R. K. Sarma Sadar Munsiff, Dibrugarh for holding an enquiry. The petitioner appeared in the course of the enquiry, showed cause and on the date of hearing he went to call his, Advocate but as he did not return back learned Munsiff forthwith concluded the enquiry passed an order holding that the petitioner was a pleader's clerk under Shri Biman Barua Advocate, but he had no valid Card or licence for the year, 1976. He relied on the resolution of the Bar Association and recommended for declaring the petitioner as tout. Learned Munsiff also recorded that the petitioner had claimed that he had submitted his Card for renewal but the Bar Association omitted to send the same for renewal.

(3.) Mr. B. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that to declare a person tout is to stigmatise a person as such the enquiry officer as well as learned District Judge should have been cautious enough to make the orders recommending or declaring the petitioner a tout. Counsel submits that the plea of the petitioner was well established. It has been submitted that there was no fair enquiry and no opportunity was given by the District Judge before rendering the impugned order.