Judgment

S. K. DAS, J. : This is a writ petition on behalf of the Bihar State Mukhtars Association, Patna and the Vice-President and the General Secretary thereof. The petition has been heard ex parte as there has been no appearance on behalf of the Chief Justice and Judges of the Patna High Court who were cited as respondents to the petition.

2. The petitioners contend that certain rules of the Patna High Court made as far back as 1922 under S. 11 of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879 (Act XVIII of 1879), hereinafter referred to as the Act, in respect of the functions, powers and duties of Mukhtars practising in the subordinate Courts are now invalid and void, because they contravene the fundamental right of the petitioners guaranteed under Art. 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India and are not saved by cl. (6) thereof. The petitioners have, in particular, challenged the validity of R. 2 made by the said High Court under S. 11 of the Act and incorporated in Chap. III, Part VII of the General Rules and Circular Orders of the High Court of Judicature at Patna (Civil), 1922. The petitioners pray that an appropriate writ, direction or order be issued by this Court declaring that R. 2 aforesaid is unconstitutional and therefore, void and inoperative. We shall presently read the rule; but before we do so a few facts which are not in dispute may be stated.

3. The petitioners state that the Bihar State Mukhtars Association was formed some 30 years back with the object of generally protecting the interests of the Mukhtars in the State of Bihar practising in the Courts subordinate to the High Court of Patna within the meaning of S. 8 of the Act. At its various annual conferences the said Association passed resolutions to move the High Court for the removal of the restriction imposed by R. 2 aforesaid on the right of Mukhtars practising in subordinate civil Courts. The High Court did not remove the restriction. On July 27, 1958 at an emergent Executive Committee meeting of the Association it was resolved to move the SC under Art. 32 of the Constitution. The present writ petition has been filed in pursuance of that resolution.

4. The enrolment of Mukhtars is made under certain provisions of the Act to which a reference must now be made. Under S. 3 of the Act "a subordinate Court" means all Courts subordinate to the High Court including Courts of Small Causes established under Act IX of 1850 or Act XI of 1865. "Legal practitioner" means an advocate, vakil or attorney of any High Court, a pleader, Mukhtar or revenue-agent. Section 6 of the Act empowers the High Court to make from time to time rules consistent with the Act in respect of certain matters including inter alia the qualifications, admission and certificates of proper persons to be Mukhtars of the subordinate Courts. It appears that by a rule made under S. 6 of the Act, the High Court of Patna laid down that any person who shall produce a certificate from a committee constituted by the High Court that he has passed an examination in the subjects prescribed from time to time by the High Court for the mukhtarship examination may be admitted as a Mukhtar to practise in Courts subordinate to the High Court. Rule 10 laid down the subjects in which the examination was to be held. This examination was known as the Mukhtarship examination. It was abolished some time in the year 1947-48. Under S. 7 of the Act, the High Court made certain rules for the grant of certificates to Mukhtars who had passed the necessary examination for admission as prescribed by the rules referred to above. Section 7 also provided for annual renewal of such certificates. The argument of learned advocate for the petitioners is rested mainly on the provisions of S. 9 and they must be quoted in full.

"Every mukhtar holding a certificate issued under S. 7 may, apply to be enrolled in any Civil or Criminal Court mentioned therein and situate within the same limits; and, subject to such rules as the High Court may from