JUDGMENT 1. In the case of Purna Chunder Pal 4 C.W.N. 389 : ILR (1899) Cal. 1024 Hill, J., held that a Subordinate Court is authorized to proceed under sec. 14 of the Legal Practitioners' Act, 1879, only in matters coming within cls. (a) and (b) of sec. 13 of the Act. Sec. 14 directs that if any pleader or mukhtear practising in any Subordinate Court is charged in such Court with taking instructions except as provided in cl. (a) of sec. 13, or with any such misconduct as is specified in the section, the presiding officer shall send him a copy of the charge and a notice of the day on which such charge will be taken into consideration. In all other cases the authority to frame a charge and hold an enquiry is vested exclusively in the High Court. In the present case, the improper conduct with which the Petitioners are charged is specified in the charge itself, viz., that they as legal practitioners put undue pressure on Babu Umesh Chandra Kar, a Mukhtear, who had accepted vakalatnamahs and filed plaints on behalf of one Bhairab Chandra Sarkar in suits Nos. 1260 to 1275 of 1906 in the Munsif's third Court- at Perozepur, to give up the said cases and to refrain from doing any further act as a Mukhtear in those cases. The improper conduct, if any, of the Petitioners relates to suits then pending in the Court of the Munsif of the third Court and the Munsif of that Court or the Munsif who has at present cognisance of the suits is the proper Court to make an enquiry under sec. 14 of the Act. No complaint was also made to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Perozepur. The Petitioners are Civil and Criminal Court Mukhtears and are authorized by their certificates to practise in both classes of Courts in Backer-gunge and notwithstanding that their attendance as Mukhtears in Criminal Courts is of more frequent than in Civil Courts, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Perozepur acted improperly and without jurisdiction in framing a charge for the purpose of holding an enquiry into the alleged misconduct of the Petitioners. There is an additional reason in this particular case why we are bound to hold that the conduct of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has been very highly improper. There is an additional reason in this particular case why we are bound to hold that the conduct of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has been very highly improper. On the 20th April 1906, the Mukhtear, Umesh Chandra Kar, who is also the Mukhtear of the Court of Wards at Perozepur, submitted, through the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Perozepur, a petition to the Collector of Backergunge complaining of the conduct of the present Petitioners, in that they had combined not to associate or act with him. On the following day, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate forwarded the petition to the Collector of Backergunge with a report in which he asked the permission of the Collector "to withhold permission" to the present Petitioners to appear and act in his Court for their delinquencies. On the 24th April, the Collector of Backergunge acting in his capacity as District Magistrate forwarded copies of the petition of Babu Umes Chandra Kar and the report of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to the District Judge of Backergunge expressly stating in his fowarding letter that as the conduct complained of had reference to a proceeding in the Civil Court he (the District Magistrate) could not take action in the matter and he added--"If you think your Munsif should made an enquiry with a view to taking action against the leaders (the present Petitioners) under sec. 14 of the Legal Practitioners' Act I shall direct the Sub-Divisional officer to see that evidence is produced when required." The District Magistrate acted according to law and very properly in forwarding the papers to the District Judge for such action as the District Judge might think proper to take. It does not appear that the District Magistrate authorized his Subordinate Magistrate to take action under sec. 14 of the Act. 2. On the 27th April, the District Judge forwarded the District Magistrate's letter and enclosures to the Munsif first Court at Perozepur to whom, we are informed, the rent suits instituted in the third Court were already transferred, for necessary enquiry and report, and therefore on the 28th April the Munsif first Court sent notices to the complainant and the Sub-Divisional Officer of Perozepur for necessary Information as to evidence and the persons against whom charges under the Legal Practitioners' Act should be framed. Thus by the 28th April, the Munsif first Court had full seizin of the matter and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was apprised of it and had knowledge of the fact. But the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was not satisfied with the action of his official superior the District Magistrate and the Sessions Judge and wanted to take up the proceedings himself to the exclusion of the Munsif. On the 12th May he himself drew up a charge under sec. 14 of the Legal Practitioners' Act, ignoring the proceedings pending in the Munsif's Court, and the views and direction of the District Magistrate and the District Judge. Even if the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had concurrent jurisdiction in the matter, he was not at all justified in framing a charge and taking up the enquiry when the Munsif had already in regular course commenced the proceedings under authority from the District Judge. The action of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was not only unauthorized but was in defiance of the actions of his superiors and grossly improper. Accordingly we make the rule absolute and direct that the proceedings in the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's Court against the Petitioners be quashed.