BERI, J.—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 Practitioners 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. Challenging the order of the District Judge, Jodhpur the petitioner submitted S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1116 of 1970, which a learned Single Judge of this Court rejected summarily on 15-6-1970. It is against his order that the present appeal has been preferred.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Advocate for the High Court Advocates Association and Mr. Saluja as intervener.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the inquiry court, namely, the Civil Judge, Jodhpur, having exonerated the petitioner from the accusation of his being a tout the District Judge had no jurisdiction in law to re-open the question and to declare the petitioner a tout. He placed reliance on a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Kapoor Chand Jain vs. Emperor (1) and a decision of the Lahore High Court in Fakir Chand vs. Emperor (2).

6. In order to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel it is necessary to notice the material part of sec. 36 of the Legal Practitioners Act. which reads:

"36. Power to frame and publish lists of touts. (1) Every High Court, District Judge, District Magistrate and Presidency Magistrate, every revenue officer, not being below the rank of a Collector of a district, and. the Chief Justice of every Presidency Small Cause Court teach as regards their or his own court and the courts, if any, subordinate thereto), may frame and publish lists of persons proved to their or his satisfaction, or to the satisfaction of any subordinate court as provided in sub-sec. (2A) by evidence of general repute or otherwise, habitually to act as touts, and may, from time to time, alter and amend such lists.

(2) No persons name shall be included in any such list until he shall have had an opportunity of showing cause against such inclusion.

(2A) Any authority empowered u

Click Here to Read the rest of this document