PARMESHWAR PRASAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application, the applicant has prayed for issue of an appropriate writ quashing, cancelling or modifying the provisions of Sections 24 and 50 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (Act XXV of 1961--hereinafter referred to as the Act), and the rules framed thereunder.

(2.) The petitioner, while in Government service, passed the Mukhtarship examination held in the year 1947, and a certificate to that effect, bearing Registered No. 3202 dated the 29th April, 1948, was issued to him by the Committee of Legal Education appointed under Section 37 of the Legal Practitioners Act (Act XVIII of 1879) by the Governor of Bihar to conduct the said examination. The petitioner continued in Government service even thereafter. On the 30th September, 1967, he took one year's leave, preparatory to retirement, with effect from the 30th September, 1968. He was then working as the Office Superintendent of the Monghyr Collectorate. While on leave, on the 27th November, 1967, he applied for being enrolled as a Mukhtar through the District Judge of Monghyr. His application for enrolment was, however, returned by the Registrar of this Court by letter No. 442 dated the 15th January, 1968, as it could not be considered so long the petitioner remained on leave, as he would be deemed to be in service so long he drew his pay. The petitioner has averred that thereupon he got his leave, with effect from the 29th January, 1968, cancelled for being enrolled as a Mukhtar and again applied on the 8th February, 1968, through the District Judge of Monghyr for being enrolled as a Mukhtar and, after all the formalities were gone into, he was ordered to get the Mukhtarship Licence, but, in the meantime, the Registrar of this Court, by letter No. 7331 dated the 5th June, 1968, intimated that the High Court had no power to issue the licence and the petitioner was verbally advised by the Registrar of the Court to apply for enrolment as an Advocate, before the Secretary, Bar Council. Bihar. The petitioner, accordingly, applied for being enrolled as an Advocate and deposited the requisite enrolment fee of Rs. 250/-. On the 2nd August, 1968, he was called for and interviewed by the Enrolment Committee of the Bihar State Bar Council and was told that he could not be enrolled as an Advocate, in view of the provisions contained in Section 24 (3) of the Act, according to which, a Mukh-tar, who has practised for at least three years before March, 1964, was only entitled to be enrolled as an Advocate, and, the petitioner, not having practised as a Mukhtar for a single day, could not be enrolled as an Advocate. On the 2nd August, 1968, the petitioner was allowed to withdraw ,his application for enrolment as an Advocate, and the enrolment fee of Rs. 250/- was also refunded to him, (vide Annexure '1').

(3.) The petitioner, thereafter, again moved the Registrar of this Court to reconsider his application for enrolment as a Mukhtar and issue him the licence, but the Registrar of this Court informed the District Judge of Monghyr that the petitioner could not be enrolled as a Mukhtar and reiterated the Court's earlier decision in the matter, (vide Annexure '2').