JUDGMENT Tarun Kumar Basu, J. 1. A short but interesting question of law arises in the instant case. The facts may be briefly noted. The petitioner Ajit Kumar Das is an advocate enrolled under the Advocates Act 1961. He usually practices in connection with the compensation cases in the office of the District Compensation Officer, Midnapore as well as the offices of the Sub-Divisional Compensation Officers in the District of Midnapore. These compensation case arise under the provisions of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 for payment of ad-interim as well as final compensation on account of acquisition of the estates of the erstwhile intermediaries. 2. In connection with his professional work he files Vokalatnama on behalf of his client identifies his client as also withdraws compensation on behalf of his clients on the basis of properly executed Vokalatnama. It appears that once certain proceedings were started in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Midnapore on a complaint made against the petitioner and others but by an order dated the 21.2.1973, six years after the case was instituted the petitioner and others were discharged as the Investigating officer could not prove anything against them. 3. In the present rule, the petitioner has made certain grievances with regard to his right of filing Vokalatnama, withdrawing compensation on behalf of his clients on the basis thereof and also with regard to identifying his client before the appropriate authorities in connection with the withdrawal of the ad-interim or final compensation. At the time of the rule nisi was issued, the petitioner complained that he was being prevented from doing the aforesaid acts which according to him are an integral part of his profession as an advocate. 4. The scope of the controversy before me has become very short because by virtue of an interim order passed by Anil Kumar Sen, J. on the 25.3.1974 most of the reliefs prayed for in the rule has been granted. The only question that remains outstanding is whether under the law the petitioner, as a part of his professional duty as an advocate has the right to identify his client for the purpose of compensation. 5. Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner strongly relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hiralal Jain vs. Delhi Administration, AIR 1972 SC 2598. 5. Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner strongly relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hiralal Jain vs. Delhi Administration, AIR 1972 SC 2598. At Paragraph 9 of the report Dwivedi J. delivering the judgment of the Supreme Court observed as follows:- "The real charge against him is that of conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC. But there is no prima facie evidence in respect of this charge. The documentary evidence only shows that the appellant made applications on behalf of the other accused, that he filed his Vokalatnama and that he identified them as the real claimants. It is well known that the main income of many lawyers in the District Court is derived from the work of identifying persons and sureties in the courts. The other accused must have told the appellant that they were the real claimants. He believed them and agreed to act for them. It seems to us that he did nothing beyond what a lawyer is authorised to do in a court of law." 6. Relying on the above observations of the Supreme Court Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee contended that the work of identification according to the Supreme Court decision is well within the bounds of the legal right and duty of a practicing lawyer. 7. In my view this contention is of substance and should be accepted. As I read the judgment of the Supreme Court it seems to be a clear authority for the proposition that the right of identification of a person as a claimant is one of the rights of the lawyer recognized by the Supreme Court. On the strength of the above decision I hold that the respondents authorities acted wrongfully in refusing to allow the petitioner to identify such of his clients as were claimants before the appropriate compensation authorities as they appear to have done. Learned Advocate on behalf of respondents raised the only contention that the petitioner has no right to identify. I am unable to accept that contention in view of the above Supreme Court decision. 8. In the result, this application succeeds and the rule is made absolute to the extent indicated below. 9. Learned Advocate on behalf of respondents raised the only contention that the petitioner has no right to identify. I am unable to accept that contention in view of the above Supreme Court decision. 8. In the result, this application succeeds and the rule is made absolute to the extent indicated below. 9. Let a Writ of Mandamus issue directing the respondents to forthwith forbear and desist from refusing to allow the petitioner to identify such persons as he wants to as claimants for ad-interim or final compensation before the appropriate authorities. 10. The Rule is thus the disposed of on the above terms. There will be no order as to costs.