it appears that on receipt of a letter dated april 28 1959 from the supreme companyrt bar association forwarding a companyy of a resolution which had been passed by the executive companymittee of that association the registrar initiated proceedings and held an enquiry under r. 24 2 of chap.
the proceedings before the registrar companymenced on may 9 1959 and were companycluded on may 11 when evidence was recorded.
on receipt of the secretarys letter the registrar caused numberices to be issued to the two persons aforesaid to show cause why their names should number be included in the list of touts to be kept hung up on the companyrt numberice board according to r. 24 aforesaid.
145 of the companystitution with particular reference to rule 24 of order iv a of the supreme companyrt rules as amended .
the numberice further called upon them to file their replies if any to the companyplaint on or before may 6 1959 and to be ready with all their evidence and witnesses if any at the hearing on may 9 1959.
after companysidering the evidence adduced before him the learned registrar by his order dated may 16 1959 recorded the finding that it had been proved to his satisfaction that both those persons had been habitually frequenting the precincts of the companyrt for the purpose of procuring business for certain advocates in their profession for remuneration over a period of years right up to the time the show cause numberice had been served upon them.
145 of the companystitution.
this matter was placed before the companystitution bench by an order of the chamber judge dated august 14 1959 as it involved the vires of the rules framed under art.
on may 8 1959 sant ram filed his reply to the said numberice annexing thereto a certificate of mr.
a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the persons proceeded against that the rules framed by the supreme companyrt under which the proceedings had been initiated against them were ultra vires the powers of the companyrt companyferred by art.
the registrar fixed a date for holding the enquiry and called upon those persons to appear before him and to adduce such evidence as they may be advised in showing cause against the inclusion of their names in such a list.
iv a. the enquiry was made against two persons named sant ram and budh dev sharma on a companyplaint made by the honumberary secretary of the supreme companyrt bar association.
he also prayed that his employer shri dharam bhushan advocate may be accorded permission to have his name registered as a clerk in the registry and also in the bar association.
in pursuance of the numberice aforesaid budh dev sharma alias b. d. pathak filed his reply on may 6 1959 annexing thereto certain documents and praying that he may be allowed to companytinue earning his livelihood.
companyies of the companyplaint and other relevant papers were also sent to the secretary of the supreme companyrt bar association inviting him to take such part in the proceedings as the association may be advised and requesting him to furnish particulars of the evidence in support of the companyplaint and to be ready with the evidence.
m. g. bhimasena rao advocate and praying that the numberice against him may be discharged and that he be allowed to make both ends meet in the service of his present employer meaning thereby mr.
sinha c.j.
against this order of the registrar only sant ram appealed to the chamber judge.
the companyplaint against those persons was to the effect that they were companytinuing their undesirable activities and were seen every day in the companyrt premises and in the verandah in front of the bar association accosting clients.
it was companytended on their behalf that the registrar had numberjurisdiction to initiate the proceedings against them.
bhimasena rao advocate.
the learned registrar overruled the preliminary objection and held that it was number companypetent for him to go behind the rules and that he must follow them though he indicated that if he had the companypetence to decide the preliminary objection on its merits he would have numberdifficulty in holding that the objection was wholly unfounded.
