The judgment establishes the legal principle that the Bar Council must have a 'reason to believe' that an advocate is guilty of professional misconduct before initiating disciplinary proceedings.

( 1 ) A complaint filed by one Sri J. Gopal son of late Sri Jatappa under S. 35 of Advocates Act, 1961, against the petitioner before the Karnataka State Bar Council is referred to the disciplinary committee by the Bar council for enquiry. The initiation of these proceedings is the subject matter of this writ petition.

( 2 ) TO appreciate the grievance of the petitioner, it is necessary to have a look at the relevant facts leading to filing of this writ petition.

( 3 ) PETITIONER is a Practising Advocate and is in the roll of Karnataka State Bar Council (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'bar Council' ). One sri Jatappa, while he was alive, through his power of attorney holder Sri J. Gopal filed a petition in W. P. No. 28236/1992 before this Court, inter alia questioning the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Bangalore South Taluk, in case No. LRF 5448/78 dated 22-7-1992, by engaging the services of Sri C. V. Subba Rao, a learned Counsel. When the petition was pending before this Court, the power of attorney holder of Sri Jatappa, some time in the month of February, 1998, had engaged the petitioner to conduct the case by handing over the writ petition papers. It appears, Sri Jatappa expired some time in the month of May, 1998. It is the case of the petitioner that the death of Sri Jatappa was never brought to his notice either by the power of attorney holder or any other legal representatives of Sri Jatappa. It is also stated in the petition that W. P. No. 28236/1992 was posted before the Court for hearing on 25th day of October, 2000 and on that day, on the submission made by the learned Counsel for the contesting private respondent that Sri Jatappa has expired two years ago and no steps have been taken to bring the legal representatives on record, the Court has dismissed the petition as abated with liberty to restore it, if appropriate application is made after complying with the legal requirements.

( 4 ) THE power of attorney holder of late Sri Jatappa, after coming to know of the dismissal of the writ petition, has filed a complaint dated 22-1-2002, under S. 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, before the Bar Council, inter alia alleging the professional misconduct said to have been committed by his learned Advocate. The sum and substance of the allegation is that, after his father's death on 1-5-1998, he had brought that fact to the knowledge of his Advocate Sri A. K. Subbaiah and his assistant and subsequently he came to know about the dismissal of the writ petition as abated, since the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner had not been brought on record and further when the matter had been posted for hearing before the Court on 25-10-2000 his Advocate had not appeared or represented the matter and the same amounts to professional misconduct. Therefore, he requests the Bar Council to take action against his Advocate as per law. The complaint filed by Sri J. Gopal, who is not only the power attorney holder but also the son of late Sri Jatappa before the Bar Council reads as under:"complaint UNDER SEC. 35 OF THE ADVOCATES ACT, 1961 the complainant above named begs to states as follows : 1. My father late Jattappa had engaged the services of Sri A. K. Subbaiah in writ petition No. 28236/1992 (LR), on the file of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in fact, I was taking care of the matter and my father had appointed me as Power of Attorney Holder in the above matter. 2. My father Jattappa passed away on 1-5-1998. Immediately thereafter, I brought this fact to the knowledge of Sri A. K. Subbaiah and his assistant. To my shock and disbelief, I came to know that the said Writ Petition was dismissed on 25-10-2000. I immediately applied for certified copy and obtained the same. It was only then that I understood that the Writ Petition was abated as the application for bringing the legal representatives on record was not filed. The order dated 25-10-2000 also makes it clear that my Advocate has