JUDGMENT

Karamat Husain, J. - The learned District Judge of Meerut acting u/s 36 of the Legal Practitioners Act (XVIII of 1879), by his order dated the 15th June 1908, framed a list containing the names of 11 persons who by the evidence of general repute were proved to his satisfaction to habitually act as touts and directed it to be hung in his own Court and in all Courts subordinate to him including the Rent Courts. The applicant Kedar Nath is one of the persons whose name is on that list. He has applied for the revision of that order of the learned District Judge. There is no appeal from such an order nor is there any revision either u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, or Section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The only section under which the High Court has been held entitled to interfere with an order passed u/s 36 of the Legal Practitioners Act is Section 15 of the High Courts Act (24 and 25 Vict., C. 104, 6th August 1861). In the application for revision there is no ground to the effect that Section 15 of the High Courts Act gives the power of superintendence to the whole Court and not to a Bench of two Judges and that, therefore, this Bench has no jurisdiction to dispose of this revision, but as the ground deals with the jurisdiction of this Court and is of great importance, we allowed the learned Counsel for the applicant to argue it. He contends that Section 15 of the said Act gives the High Court power to call for returns, to make general rules for regulating the practice and proceedings of the Courts subject to its appellate jurisdiction and to prescribe forms for every proceeding in the said Courts, and no one can contend that a Bench of two Judges of this Court has power to do any of the above acts and that, as the power of superintendence is also given by the same section, a Bench of two Judges has no power to exercise it. If it has such a power the result will be that the whole Court will be bound by the act of two Judges only. The learned Government Advocate in answer to this contention says that Rule 4 of the Rules of the High Court, which is as follows, Save as prescribed by law or by these rules or by special order of the Chief Justice every other case shall be heard and disposed of by a Bench of two Judges," gives this Bench a power to dispose of the application for revision, which undoubtedly is a case and for which there is no provision in the rules of High Court. He also argues that there has been a course of decisions in this Court as well as in other Courts, that cases u/s 36 of the Legal Practitioners Act have been dealt with by a Bench of two Judges and not by the High Court as a whole, and that the objection as to the jurisdiction of a Bench of two Judges to deal with the matter has never been taken (see Tej Ram v. Harsukh 1 A. 101. Muhammad Suleman Khan v. Fatima 9 A. 104. In the matter of Madho Ram 21 A. 181 : 1901 MN 39 . decided on the 6th June 1901; Mis. No. 127 of 1904, decided on the 22nd February 1905, and the cases u/s 36 of the Legal Practitioners Act in the other High Courts quoted on p. 1040, u/s 15 of the High Courts Act in the CPC by O'Kinealy, 6th Edition.)

2. In my opinion the contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant is well founded. The power of superintendence conferred upon the High Court by Section 15 of the High Courts Act--which power has been extended to interference with the orders passed u/s 38 of the Legal Practitioners Act--is no doubt; conferred upon the whole of the High Court and not upon a Bench of two Judges. Rule 4 of the High Court Rules, owing to the saving clause save as provided by law", does not empower a Bench of two Judges to dispose of the revision, inasmuch as that power u/s 15 of the High Courts Act vests in the whole Court.

3. There exists no doubt a course of decisions in which the cases, u/s 36 of the Legal Practitioners Act, have been disposed of by a Bench of two Judges, but in none of these cases the question of jurisdiction was ra