JUDGMENT 1. This is a rule calling upon Babu Sarat Chandra Pal, Munsif of Pingna in the District of Mymensingh, to show cause why his orders, dated the 22nd September and 26th November 1904, respectively, directing the Petitioner, who is a pleader practising in his Court, to dismiss some of his mohurrirs, should not be set aside as being passed without any authority of law. When the rule was granted, a copy of the petition and the affidavit annexed to it was sent to the Munsif concerned for any observations that he might desire to make; and that officer has submitted a long report which we have carefully considered. It would appear from that report and the contents of the orders complained against, that, in the course of a certain proceeding before the Munsif, a certain person Sri Caunt Dey, who appeared to be a clerk of the Petitioner, Babu Pramatha Nath Mazumdar, was examined as a witness and, upon the Munsif's own showing, he thought it necessary or expedient that, in order to determine whether the said witness Sri Caunt Dey could be trusted or not, the Petitioner, the master of Sri Caunt, should be examined, and he accordingly did so. And it being disclosed in the course of the evidence that was thus taken by the Munsif that the pleader concerned kept, for the conduct of the business as pleader, no less than five clerks, and that they were more or less touts and not clerks in the proper sense of the word, the Munsif was of opinion that the pleader should be directed to dismiss four out of the five clerks in his employment; and he made an order accordingly on the 22nd September 1904. The pleader apparently was not disposed to incur the displeasure of the Munsif; and he accordingly asked permission to keep two clerks; but the Munsif thought that such permission ought not to be accorded, and he insisted upon the order that he had made being carried out. The pleader subsequently presented a petition to the Munsif praying that the order made on the 22nd September might be reconsidered. The pleader subsequently presented a petition to the Munsif praying that the order made on the 22nd September might be reconsidered. It was described to be a petition for review; and the Munsif following the same line that he had adopted on the former occasion, came to the conclusion that no sufficient cause had been made out to grant the review, and he accordingly affirmed the order that he had already made. This last-mentioned order was on the 26th November 1904. Against these orders an application was presented to this Court by the pleader complaining of the illegality of the proceedings adopted by the Munsif against him, and asking that the said two orders might be set aside. We regret very much that the Munsif should have wasted so much public time on the proceedings that he adopted, and in writing out the two long orders of the 22nd September and 26th November 1904, and also in writing out the very long report which he has submitted to this Court, in regard thereto. Upon an examination of this last-mentioned paper, it would be found that the Munsif thought that he had an inherent power to refuse to recognise as a pleader's clerk a person who was not a bond fide clerk, and that for the purpose of maintaining the purity of his own bar and the reputation of his Court, it was necessary that the order that he had made should be carried out. We do not know of any such inherent power that he says he possesses. However that may be, it is quite plain that he could not make the orders which he made without taking proceedings under the Legal Practitioners' Act, either against the pleader or against any particular person or persons who might have been described before him as a tout or touts. The Munsif has indulged in a great deal of irrelevant matter, which had no bearing at all upon the precise point which he had to discuss and determine; and, as we have already stated, we extremely regret that he should have wasted so much of public time in this matter. He has not shown to us that he had any authority in law in directing any pleader of his Court to dismiss any of his clerks. He has not shown to us that he had any authority in law in directing any pleader of his Court to dismiss any of his clerks. If any body acted unprofessionally or in any way not warranted by law he could have taken such proceedings as he might be advised under the Legal Practitioners' Act or under any other Act that might be applicable. As the two orders are without any authority in law, we set them aside and send back the record to the Munsif with an expression of our displeasure at his conduct in relation to this matter.