Judgment

Patanjali Sastri, C.J.I. - This is an application under Art. 32 of the Constitution for relief in respect of an alleged infringement of the fundamental right of the petitioners under Art. 19 (1) (g) or, alternatively, under Art. 136 for special leave to appeal from a judgement of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta rejecting their application for the same relief under Art. 226.

2. As the petitioners would clearly be entitled to relief under the one or the other form of remedy if their claim was well-founded, no objection was taken to the maintainability of the present proceeding, and we desire to guard ourselves against being taken to have decided that a proceeding under Art. 32 would lie after an application under Art. 226 for the same relief on the same facts had been rejected after due enquiry by a High Court. We express no opinion on that point.

3. The facts leading to this proceeding are not in dispute and may be briefly stated. The first petitioner is an Advocate of this Court and his name is also on the roll of Advocates of the High Court of Calcutta. As an Advocate of the latter Court he is entitled, under the relevant rules there in force, both to act and to ple