BABUL CHANDRA MITRA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the petitioner Babul Chandra Mitra has asked for a rule calling upon the High Court on the administrative side to show cause why a writ or direction under Article 228 of the Constitution should not be issued commanding that the petitioner should be enrolled as an Advocate.

(2.) The application is founded upon the following facts. Babul Chandra Mitra obtained the degree of Bachelor of Law from Patna University in the year 1937. Next year he applied for being enrolled as a Pleader to practise at Mozaffarpore. The application was rejected by the High Court. In 1939 and again in 1943 the applicant asked for reconsideration of his case. But the High Court considered that there was no reason to alter the previous decision and that the enrolment was properly refused. In 1945 the applicant joined the chambers of the late Srinarain Bose, Advocate, and pursued studies for a period of one year. On 9th October 1950 he applied to the High Court for being enrolled as an Advocate and attached to his application three certificates of good conduct. On 8th January 1951 the application was rejected by the High Court without giving notice of the application to the Bar Council. The petitioner contends that in making this order the High Court has acted contrary to law and that the fundamental right of the petitioner to practice a profession has been violated.

(3.) In this proceeding the validity of the order of the High Court is challenged on the grounds : (1) that the application for enrolment could not lawfully be rejected without making a reference to the Bar Council under Rule 9 of the Bar Council Rules; (2) that in any case the proviso to Section 9 (1) of the Bar Councils Act was constitutionally invalid since the High Court was granted power to refuse admission to any person in its unfettered discretion and so violated the guarantee under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution.