MISHRILAL Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE JODHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a special appeal under sec. 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, directed against the rejection in limine of a civil writ petition by a learned Single Judge of this Court in a matter relating to the declaration of the petitioner as a tout under sec. 36 of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879.

(2.) THE petitioner is a citizen of India and claimed to be employed as a clerk to an Advocate at Jodhpur. Mr. O. C. Chatterji, Advocate and 14 others made an application to the District Judge, Jodhpur, that some 8 named persons be declared as touts. THE petitioner was not included in that list. THE learned District Judge acting under sec. 36 (2a) of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879 asked the Civil Judge, Jodhpur, to inquire into the matter and report. During the pendency of this inquiry the allegations against the 8 persons named by Mr. Chatterji received the consideration of the Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association, Jodhpur. THE Association appointed a Sub-Committee and it not only found that the 8 persons mentioned by Mr. Chatterji were touts by general repute but two more including the petitioner were also touts. On 18-5-1968 the Advocates Association passed a resolution including the name of the petitioner as a tout by general repute and sent the same to the District Judge, Jodhpur, who in turn sent the resolution and asked the Civil Judge to make inquiry also in regard to the petitioner. THE Civil Judge submitted his report to the District Judge, which was received by him on 3rd November, 1969. THE petitioner was not declared as a tout by the Civil Judge but the District Judge issued a notice to the petitioner to show cause why he be not declared as a tout. THE petitioner appeared with his counsel and argued his case before the District Judge urging that he was not a tout. THE learned District Judge, however, on the basis of the material before him on 26th March, 1970 declared the petitioner to be a tout under the Legal Practitioner's Act, 1879 and included his name in the list which was ordered to be hung in his Court and Courts subordinate to it. THE petitioner was further excluded "from the precincts of the courts".

(3.) THE next argument of the learned counsel is that having regard to the location of courts in the city of Jodhpur where the State Bank of India and other offices a but the court buildings, the expression "precincts of the courts" as employed in the order of the District Judge dated 26th March, 1970 is likely to work hardship on the petitioner and expose him to the penal consequences on account of other public offices being located near the courts. THE District Judge in his order has merely employed the language of sub*sec. (4) of sec. 36 "from the precincts of the courts". THE dictionary meaning of the word "precinct" is "a part of a territory (as a city) having definite bounds or functions often established for administrative purposes". THE second meaning of the word according to the Webster's Third New International Dictionary, 1966 Edition, page 1784 is "an enclosure bounded by walls or other limits of a building or place or by an imaginary line around it. " In the circumstances of this case, because within the large enclosure there are so many offices situated, which are not all courts, it could not have been the intention of the learned District Judge's order to exclude the petitioner from offices other than Courts. A reasonable interpretation would appear to be that the petitioner is excluded from the court premises of all courts subordinate to the District Judge and including his own Court. We agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the District Judge could have only excluded the petitioner from his court and the courts subordinate to it and not for instance from the High Court which is not subordinate to him. THEre are two decisions which support the learned counsel for the petitioner and we are in agreement with those decisions that the District Judge is only empowered to exclude a person as a tout from his court and courts subordinate to it. THEy are Bavu Sahib vs. THE District Judge of Madura (5) and Jagat Chandra Ghose vs. Emperor (6 ).