( 1 ) THE petitioners who are citizens of India have challenged the constitutionality of the Letters Patent of 1965, the Calcutta High Court (Jurisdictional Limits) Act, 1919 and Section 34 (2) (3) of the Adovcates Act, 1961 on the ground that they offend the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India

( 2 ) SIMILAR application was filed by the petitioner No. 2 Sri. E. H. Tippo and and another which came for consideration before D. Basu J, as to its maintainability. The said petition was dismissed on the ground that there were not sufficient averments to show which would render the alleged classification unreasonable and also to show how they were affected by the offending law. It was held that unless such averments were made the opposite parties could not get an opportunity to controvert such allegations or to set up further grounds for which the classification, if any, may be sustained. D. Basu. J, however, permitted them to file fresh application either by themselves or along with others with proper averments. The said order was passed in C. O. 6796 (W) of 1968 on Jan. 25, 1971.

( 3 ) AFTER that, the present application has been filed on 5-2-1971.

( 4 ) THE petitioner No. 1 is an Advocate practising in this High Court. The petitioner No. 2 is a journalist, auditor, printer and publisher of various newspaper-periodicals and a Director of Engineering Times Publication (P.) Ltd. having its registered office at 8. Dharmatala Street. Calcutta. They made separate averments of their own while challenging the impugned Acts. According to the petitioner No. 1, he is to practise even before the Appellate Side of this High Court and also in the mofussil Court like Alipore. In Alipore Court he can be directly engaged by the client and he can also receive his fees directly from them. Whereas in the Original Side he can only accept the brief through attorneys and his fees through them. Direct appointment and payment of fees according to him is full proof original and impressive and also it is satisfactory. His further contention is that the Original Side's rules, customs and practices affect the petitioner's right to practise freely and without any hindrance and as such these rules, customs and practice are discriminatory. By way of example he has said that there are two lists (i) one for Original Side (H) and another for Appellate Side. For this procedure he is to incur unnecessary expenditure for subscribing two lists.

( 5 ) THE petitioner No. 1 further states that the provisions of the Letters Patent as well as Calcutta High Court (Jurisdictional Limits) Act, 1919 are illegal, void and ultra vires and injurious to the petitioner parctising as an Advocate with all his rights and privileges conferred by the Advocates Act. 1961 and/ or discriminatory under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

( 6 ) NEXT comes the averments made by the petitioner No. 2 who is a journalist about whom reference has already been made. In connection with carrying his profession as a publisher and owning properties and in course of his business both at Calcutta and outside of its jurisdiction he has to file frequently cases in different courts. His contention, inter alia, is that the trial of suits in the very first instance by a High Court Judge is accredited with much better advantages with privileged limitations regarding the appeal stage, and that such adjudication eventually turns out to be more speedy, economic and convenient, and that such advantage is not available in Alipore or other Mofussil Courts. His further contention is that had there been a single jurisdiction and system of doing justice at least within a conceivable and reasonable set of conditions including area, forum, facilities, representation by Advocates etc. , a person may get much better treatment and also good result in such cases.

( 7 ) BOTH the petitioners have challenged the validity and vires of the Calcutta High Court (Jurisdictional Limits) Act. 1919 passed in pu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document