RAVINUTHALA VENKATAPPIAH Vs. SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA IN COUNCIL REPRESENTED BY THE COLLECTOR OF GUNTUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Government Pleader says that all that the District Munsif intended to do was to warn the petitioner that if he went to his Court without a summons or order of the Court, he would take steps to have him adjudged a law tout by the District Judge. In my opinion, such an order ought not to have been passed. If there was any reason to suspect that the petitioner was a tout, it was, no doubt, the duty of the Munsif to take steps to have him declared a tout. It appears to me to be objectionable to direct that the petitioner should not go to the District Munsif s Court, where justice is openly dispensed, without a summons or order. The notice to the petitioner expressly states: "you are a law tout." This again is, in my opinion, absolutely without justification. Admittedly, the District Munsif held no inquiry into the matter. In his order, the Munsif says: "I see no reason to alter my opinion of the fact of his being a tout, though his Pleader has said that I should make an inquiry. Besides, it is unnecessary to make any inquiry." It is, in my opinion, surprising that a District Munsif should refuse to make aid inquiry, and at the same time express an opinion that the petitioner is a tout, There is, of course, no objection to the District Munsif s taking steps against any person whom he suspects to be a tout to have him adjudged a tout according to law.

(2.) Having regard to the explanation now given, it is not necessary to pass any further order. Sadasiva Aiyar, J.

(3.) I am of opinion that this matter ought not to have been brought before us acting as a Judicial Bench. The District Munsif did not give any notice to anybody under the Legal Practitioners Act but merely gave a warning to the petitioner that his conduct in the precincts of the Court was not proper and that, if he continued to indulge in that course of conduct, steps would be taken under the Legal Practitioners Act. The Munsif might not have put the warning in as proper a language as we might think that he ought to have used and he might even have used more harsh language in his warning to the petitioner than was necessary.