(1.) This is an application in revision from an order of the District Magistrate and Collector of Agra including the name of Kapoor Chand in a list of touts under Section 36, Legal Practitioners Act, framed and published by him. A preliminary objection is taken that no revision lies. We think that this question is now concluded by the opinion expressed in Kashi Nath V/s. Emperor A.I.R. 1924 All. 69, where following an earlier case in the matter of the petition of Madho Ram [1899] 21 All. 181, it was remarked that this Court could interfere in the exercise of the general powers of superintendence conferred upon it by Section 15, High Courts Act, 1871 and Section 107, Government of India Act. We may point out that although this objection was not raised, another Bench also did entertain the application in Ghafoor Khan V/s. Emperor .
(2.) On the merits we find that the order of the District Magistrate and Collector cannot be supported. Instead of making an enquiry into the complaint himself he thought it fit to entrust the enquiry to the Joint Magistrate under him. The Joint Magistrate took evidence and drew a report in which, so far as Kapoor Chand was concerned, his opinion was that there was a possibility that this man's name had been included in the list on account of party intrigues against him owing to his association with the police. The Joint Magistrate noted that a pleader supported another witness who said that Kapoor Chand was a man of respectable status. The actual recommendation was in the following words: At any rate the case against this man is doubtful, of which he should be given the benefit.
(3.) This report bears the date 12 October 1928. On 15 October the District Magistrate and Collector passed the order which is the subject of revision. He started by saying: "I accept the report" and then went on to declare that all the persons including Kapoor Chand were declared touts and remarked: All these persons were given an opportunity to explain their activities in and about Court and all failed.