IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Harish Chandra and Bind Basni Prasad, JJ.
IN RE: PHOOL DIN AND ORS. - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UP - Respondents
Civil Misc. 44 Of 1949
Decided On : 01/03/1952
LEGAL PRACTITIONERS ACT - SECTION 36 - TOUTISM - DEFINITION - RESTRICTIONS - CONSTITUTIONALITY - EVIDENCE - ADMISSIBILITY - RESOLUTION OF LAWYERS' ASSOCIATIONS.
Fact of the Case:
The Allahabad High Court initiated proceedings under Section 36 of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879, based on a resolution passed by the Advocates Association and the Bar Library declaring 14 individuals as touts. The resolution was passed at meetings convened specifically to address the issue of touting. Notices were issued to the individuals, and 11 of them contested the allegations.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that touting is a profession prohibited by law and that the provisions of the Legal Practitioners Act relating to touts are saved by Clause (6) of Article 19 of the Constitution, which permits reasonable restrictions in the interests of the general public. The Court found that the resolutions passed by the Advocates Association and the Bar Library were admissible in evidence under the Explanation to Section 36 (1) of the Legal Practitioners Act, even though a third association, the Bar Association, had not passed a similar resolution.
Issues: 1. Whether touting is a profession protected by Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution? 2. Whether the provisions of the Legal Practitioners Act relating to touts are constitutional? 3. Whether the resolutions passed by the Advocates Association and the Bar Library are admissible in evidence?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that touting is not a profession protected by Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution because it is prohibited by law and is contrary to public interest. The Court found that the provisions of the Legal Practitioners Act relating to touts are reasonable restrictions in the interests of the general public and are therefore saved by Clause (6) of Article 19. 2. The Court held that the resolutions passed by the Advocates Association and the Bar Library are admissible in evidence under the Explanation to Section 36 (1) of the Legal Practitioners Act, even though a third association, the Bar Association, had not passed a similar resolution. The Court found that the Explanation requires only that the resolution be passed by a majority of the members present at a meeting specially convened for the purpose, and that the meeting of the Bar Library fulfilled these requirements.
Final Decision: The Court declared that it was satisfied that the 11 individuals habitually acted as touts and directed that a list containing their names be framed and published in the manner prescribed in Sub-section (3) of Section 36 of the Legal Practitioners Act. The proceedings against one individual who had died abated, and the case against two other individuals was to be separately registered and efforts made to serve notices upon them.
( 1 ) THIS is a proceeding under Section 36, Legal Practitioners Act, 1879.
( 2 ) ON 13th December 1948, the Honorary Secretary of the Advocates Association of this Court forwarded to the Registrar a resolution passed by it at a meeting held on 1st December 1948, especially convened for the purpose of considering the question of toutism. The resolution runs as follows:
"that the Advocates Association hereby declares that the following persons habitually act as touts and by their general repute are touts. (List of names who bring the oases from stations, Dharamshalas, sarais and other places ). Phool Din Tamoll Nakhas Kohna, Allahabad. 1mahadeo Prasad, Bhat Yahiapur, Allahabad. 2 bam Khelawan, Brahman Badshahimandi, near the house of Sheoamar Lal, 3 Vakil, Allahabad. Jai Ghand s/o Maha-deo Yahiapar, Allahabad. 4 Prasad. Zaheer Husain Baran tale Garhi (Dondi-xpur), Allahabad. 5. Chanda Bhatyara Sarai Khuldibad, Ekkawala, Allahabad. 6. Jhamman Bhatyara Sarai Khuldabad, Ekkawala, Allahabad 7. Nawab Bhatyara8 8abdul Bahman s/o, Mian 9 Jan. Abdul Bahman1 10. Dullu s/o Khuda Bux1 11. Puttu Lal1 12. Nanak Chand, Brah-man1 13. Arjun Deo1 14. Sarai Khuldabad, Ekkawala, Allahabad. Sarai Khuldabad, Allahabad. Sarai Khuldabad, Allahabad. Sarai Garhi residing in the compound of Mr. P. N. Shukla, george Town, Allahabad, (since left his original place of residence present address not known ). 1. Canning Road, Allahabad 1. Canning Road, Allahabad. "
( 3 ) IT was further resolved at that meeting that a copy of the resolution should be sent to the honble the Chief Justice for such action as he may be pleased to take in accordance with the provisions of the Legal Practitioners Act.
( 4 ) IT has come in evidence that the total membership in that association in the month of december 1948, was 134. Seventy two members were present at the meeting. As regards the first 13 persons named above the resolution was unanimous, but as regards the 14th person, viz. , arjun Deo, there was a division. Sis members were in favour of exclusion of Arjun Deos name from the list and 23 against. The rest were presumably neutral. From the evidence of Bankey Lal shukla, Assistant Librarian in the Advocates Association, it appears that a notice of the meeting was circulated to the members resident in Allahabad. To such members as were not in the station a copy of the notice was sent by post under a postal certificate. The postal certificate has been produced.
( 5 ) ON 11th January 1949, the Secretary of the Bar Library, High Court, forwarded to the Honble the Chief Justice a resolution passed by it at a meeting held on 14th December 1948. The resolution ran as follows: "the resolution of the Advocates Association, dated 1st December 1948, was considered and passed. " mohammad Ibrahim, Librarian of the Bar Library, produced the minutes of the meeting of the bar Library and proved them. It appears from those minutes that the meeting held on 14th december 1949, was convened especially for the purpose of considering the question of toutism and in particular the resolution, dated 1st December 1948, passed by the Advocates Association on the subject. Muhammad Ibrahim states that the notice of the meeting was sent round to the members. In December 1948, there were 34 members. The number of the members who were present at the meeting of 14th December 1948, was 17. There were, however, about 9 members who were not regularly attending the High Court and to them no notice was sent.
( 6 ) IT may be noted that there is a third association of lawyers practising in the High Court known as the Bar Association. From the letter, dated 24th October 1950, received from the Secretary of the Bar Association it appears that there were 48 members of that association in December 1948.
( 7 ) ON the receipt of the letters from the Secretaries of the Advocates Association and the Bar library notices were issued to the 14 persons mentioned in the resolution of Advocates associati
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.