Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.

1. These two references have been heard together and cari conveniently be dealt with in one judgment. The first reference has been made by the District Judge of Anantapur and the question raised is whether the respondent, who is an advocate of the Bombay High Court, having been enrolled by that Court on the 13th September, 1937, is entitled to practice in the Courts of the Anantapur District. Although he was enrolled by the Bombay High Court he has never practiced in that Court subordinate thereto. He has confined his practice entirely to the Courts of the Anantapur District. The second reference has been made by the District Judge of South Kanara. There are here three respondents and all of them were enroled by the Bombay High Court after the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926, came into force in that province, as was the case in the first reference, and they have since been made in consequence of the wording of Section 4 of the Legal Practitioners Act. We shall refer to the section in a moment but in passing we may say that if it stood alone a very difficult question would arise. The attention of the learned District Judges who have made these re