Petitioner is an advocate practicing in the Courts at Pathanamthitta and Ranni and has a standing of more than 24 years at the Bar. He is aggrieved by the unwarranted and unjustified remarks made by the District Judge, Pathanamthitta while disposing of O.P. (TP) No.56 of 1998 and O.P.(TP) 57 of 1998. What infuriated the learned District Judge to make disparaging remarks against the petitioner was the filing of O.P.32195 of 1999 before this Court alleging undue delay on the part of the District Judge in disposing of Transfer O.Ps.56 & 57 of 1998.O.P.32195 of 1999 was disposed of by this Court on 20-1-2000 with a direction to the District Judge to dispose of O.P. (TP) 56/96 within a period of two weeks from 25-1-2000. Transfer O.Ps. were then come up for hearing on 25-1-2000 and dismissed by the learned District Judge vide order dated 4-2-2000 making some disparaging, unmerited, uncharitable and irrelevant remarks against the counsel, which petitioner says would lower his reputation and standing at the Bar.

2. Counsel submitted, O.P.32195 of 1999 was filed before this Court not by him, but by the party engaging another counsel and the only prayer in the original petition was for early disposal of the transfer petitions pending before the District Court. Petitioner submitted, learned Judge while disposing of transfer petitions stated as follows:

"The filing of the O.P. before the Hon'ble High Court without bringing the stay petition to the notice of this Court and by suppressing the material facts before the Hon'ble High Court is highly irregular and improper and it amounts to abuse of the process of court and it may also amount to perjury for swearing false affidavit."

Followed by the above observation learned Judge further stated as follows:

"The petitioner's counsel before this Court should not have stooped to such an extent and advised the petitioner to suppress the truth and material facts and file the original petition before the Hon'ble High Court for the issuance of a direction to this Court,"

Later, learned Judge made further observation which reads as follows:

"It cannot be said that the petitioner's counsel before this Court was not aware of the filing of the original petition before the Hon'ble High Court unless there is specific allegation that he was indifferent in the conduct of the case and the petitioner was thus constrained to approach another lawyer for appropriate action."

Learned Judge made another observation which reads as follows:

"The only inference that is to be drawn in the circumstances is that it is with the connivance coupled with the advice of the petitioner's counsel before this Court and that with some ulterior motive, if not for any personal gain, that the original petition happened to be filed before the Hon'ble High Court flouting all the traditional values of legal profession."

Learned Judge then made further observation which reads as follows:

"It is really a disgrace to the whole legal fraternity and may also amount to professional misconduct if not contempt of court which calls for coercive action by the concerned forum. I feel that such unhealthy practice ridiculing the judicial proceedings should be curbed by all means to maintain the integrity and independence of the judiciary."

The above observations, according to the counsel, are unwarranted, unjustified, baseless and misconceived. Petitioner feels that such observations have been made by the learned District Judge personally against him only for the reason that the Bar Association, Pathanamthitta resolved to appraise the High Court of Kerala regarding the non disposal of cases and inordinate delay in the disposal of cases pending before the Principal District and Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta. Secretary of the Bar Association, Pathanamthitta made a representation before the High Court on 11-10-1999 seeking intervention of the Hon'ble Administrative Judge-in-charge of the District to take appropriate steps to redeem the situation. P