JUDGMENT Maclean, C.J. - This is an application under sec. 15 of the Charter Act (24 and 25 Vict., C. 104). The Petitioner is a first-grade pleader practising in the Courts of Bhola, in the District of Bakergunge. 2. The Plaintiff in a certain suit which was proposed to be instituted in the Munsif's 2nd Court of Bhola wished to engage him as his pleader. The Petitioner, for reasons which he gave, declined to act as such. The suit was instituted: the offer was renewed, and again declined by the Petitioner. 3. On an application to the District Judge of Backergunge to transfer the suit, the latter directed the Munsif to take a statement from the Petitioner as to the reasons for his refusal to act in the case. This was done: but the District Judge required fuller reasons to be given, and a further statement was taken from the Petitioner on the 25th September 1907. He gave his reasons, which were apparently based upon political grounds. The Petitioner was then called upon to show cause on the 10th December last why his conduct in refusing to accept the brief in the above case should not be reported to this Court as unprofessional conduct within the meaning of sec. 13 of the Legal Practitioners' Act (Act XVIII of 1879). He now applies to have those proceedings set aside. Sec. 13 authorises this Court to suspend or dismiss "any pleader or muktear who is guilty of fraudulent or grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty, or for any other reasonable cause." The charge against the Petitioner is that he was guilty of professional misconduct within the meaning of the section. The proceedings appear to me to have been very irregular. The Petitioner was within his rights in declining to accept the brief, if he did not wish to do so. It is not suggested that there is any rule or professional etiquette amongst the vakil Bar which required the Petitioner to accept the brief. Nor do I understand under what procedure he was subjected to the somewhat stringent examination which he had to undergo. He was not bound to give his reasons. It is idle to say the case falls within sec. 13. Nor do I understand under what procedure he was subjected to the somewhat stringent examination which he had to undergo. He was not bound to give his reasons. It is idle to say the case falls within sec. 13. The only objection taken against the rule is that it is premature, and that the Petitioner ought to have waited to see the result of the application against him. I do not take this view : I think he was entitled to come at once. The preceedings were entirely mistaken and the rule is made absolute.