Antony Dominic, J.

1. Issues raised in these writ petitions are common. Therefore, these cases were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned senior counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, the Bar Council of Kerala and the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent in these cases.

3. Petitioner is an Advocate practicing in the District Courts Centre, Thiruvananthapuram and at Neyyattinkara. He claims to be a public spirited citizen, who has filed several complaints in public interest against acts of corruption, nepotism and maladministration on the part of persons holding public offices.

4. In WP(C) No. 3704/13, it is stated that the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.2123/10 in the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram against the 2nd respondent and another person alleging offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. A copy of the complaint is Ext.P1. The complaint was rejected by the Commissioner on the ground that the averments therein did not disclose any offence against the respondents herein. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent filed Ext.P2 complaint before the 1st respondent under Section 35 of the Advocates Act for appropriate action against the petitioner.

5. In so far as it is relevant, Ext.P2 complaint reads thus;

The petitioner Adv. Nagaraj had produced several documents along with the complaint, including a press cutting from “Flash” newspaper dated 17th July 2010 and “Kerala Kaumudi” dated 18th July 2010. The newspaper reports contain defamatory matter, against me.

The petitioner Adv. Nagaraj has been filing several “Public Interest Litigation” complaints before the various Criminal Courts in Thiruvananthapuram. Details of some of the complaints filed by Adv.Nagaraj are given below.

1. Cr.MP No.1045/2009/ECT dated 20.7.2009 (against Shri E.K.Prakash, Director, Treasuries.

2. Cr.MP No.1149/2009 dt 30.11.2009 (against Shri V. Murukesh, Dy.Commissioner, Sales Tax)

3. Cr. MP No.08/2010/ECT dated 1.3.2010 (against Shri.P.K.Pocker, Director, State Institute of Language)

4. Cr. MP No.2027/2010/ECT dated 27/11/2010 (against Shri Premachandran, Addl.Director and some others, Soil Survey Dept.)

Apart from the above Adv.Nagaraj has filed similar private complaints against Sri.T.K. Raveendran, Former Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation, Shri.C.K. Guptan, former President of Travancore Devaswom Board, Shri V.Surendran Pillai, Minister, Shri K.S. Prathapachandran, Dy. Tahsildar, Thiruvananthapuram and several other public servants.

Adv. Nagaraj, misusing his privileges as an advocate, has been appearing in Court as “Party in Person”, even though the matter and contents of the complaint are not within his personal knowledge, he has been acting as an agent of persons with vested interest, in order to harass public servants. By such action he has violated the code of conduct for an advocate, and liable to be dealt with by the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council. Such action on the part of Adv. Nagaraj has lowered the profession of an Advocate, before the public, and public servants.

6. The 1st respondent referred the complaint to the Disciplinary Committee, which registered the case as DC 48/2012. The Disciplinary Committee issued Ext.P3 notice and the petitioner appeared before the Committee and filed Ext.P4 defence statement. Subsequently, the proceedings continued, but however, on account of his absence on 30/12/12, the Disciplinary Committee declared the petitioner ex parte. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application to set aside the order declaring him ex parte and the Disciplinary Committee passed Ext.P5 order setting aside the ex parte order subject to the petitioner paying Rs.2,500/- towards costs. It was at that stage this writ petition was filed seeking to quash the proceedings in DC 48/2012 as also Ext.P5 order imposing costs for se