Order Heard the parties and perused the original records. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order contained in Letter No. 3082/Acctt. dated 26.6.2004 (Annexure 2) and also the letter contained in Memo No. 3081 dated 28.6.2004 (Annexure 3) whereby his entry in the High Court premises has been restricted. 3. Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that petitioner was working as an Advocate's Clerk since a very long time. The President of Advocates' Association made a written complaint against the petitioner to the Registrar General of this Court but without following the rules of natural justice, the impugned orders were passed. No show cause notice was issued along with the copy of complaint and no enquiry was held. 4. The case of the respondent in the counter affidavit which was filed on 8.9.2004, was that the petitioner's name did not find place in the Advocate's Clerk Registration Record. 5. This position has not been disputed in the rejoinder. From the original records also, I find that that petitioner's name did not find place in the record. The Clerk's license is renewed for one year. Even petitioner has annexed only two renewal receipts for the years 1999 and 2001 only. Thus it has to be held that petitioner was not possessing Clerk's license at the relevant time and, therefore, he cannot complain violation of rules of natural justice. 6. It is pertinent to note the following facts emerging from the original records. A complaint was made by the President of the Advocates' Association on 21.5.2004 to the Registrar General of this Court to the effect that the members of the Advocates' Association repeatedly made complaints against the conduct of the petitioner and some other persons that they have developed most unfair and illegal immoral practice of trapping the client(s) and misrepresenting them in various method in the High Court premises and when they were opposed by the members of the Bar, they threatened to manhandle the concerned lawyers. It is further said in the said complaint that after enquiry, the said allegations/complaints appeared to be correct and other members of the Association also narrated the same fact. Accordingly, a request was made to cancel their licenses, if registered or if they are outsiders, then they should be restrained from entering the premises of this Court. It is further said in the said complaint that after enquiry, the said allegations/complaints appeared to be correct and other members of the Association also narrated the same fact. Accordingly, a request was made to cancel their licenses, if registered or if they are outsiders, then they should be restrained from entering the premises of this Court. It was found that the petitioner's name did not find place in the Advocate's Clerk Registration Record. The matter was placed before the Chief Justice for restricting the petitioner's entry. The proposal Wf1t3 approved by the Chief Justice on 25.6.2004. Accordingly, the impugned letters were issued by the Registrar General of this Court restricting the petitioner's entry in the High Court premises. The petitioner made a representation on 6.7.2004 before the Registrar General asking for a copy of the complaint and giving opportunity of filing show cause. The said representation was rejected on 16.7.2004 on the ground that the petitioner was an outsider. Then on 8.2.2005, the petitioner applied for fresh registration of Clerk but the same was without the approval of the Advocates' Association. The matter was placed before the Chief Justice and the same was rejected on 3.3.2005, and it was communicated to the petitioner. Then the petitioner's wife filed a representation on 19.1.2007 before the Chief Justice for allowing Advocate's Clerk license in favour of the petitioner, which was referred to the Registrar General who refused to reconsider the matter and communicated the order to her. Then the petitioner filed a petition on 14.2.2007 before the Chief Justice for revoking the orders dated 26.6.2004 and 28.6.2004 impugned in this writ petition. This petition was also referred to the Registrar General, which was rejected and communicated to the petitioner. 7. From the facts and circumstances noticed above it appears that the complaint was made by the Advocates' Association after enquiring into the allegations made against the petitioner. Moreover, petitioner's name was not found in the records of the Registered Advocate's Clerk. Accordingly, his entry in High Court premises was restricted. Representations made on behalf of the petitioner have been repeatedly rejected by the High Court. His request for issuance of license was also rejected by the High Court. It cannot be said that the petitioner derived any right to enter into the premises of the High Court or for grant of Clerk's license. Representations made on behalf of the petitioner have been repeatedly rejected by the High Court. His request for issuance of license was also rejected by the High Court. It cannot be said that the petitioner derived any right to enter into the premises of the High Court or for grant of Clerk's license. Moreover, petitioner has suppressed about repeated rejections of his representations by the High Court during the pendency of this writ petition. 8. In any view of the matter, no relief can be granted to the petitioner and, accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. However, no costs. The original file called for is returned to the Registrar General.