Allegation of misconduct against an advocate not proved.

.1. This Revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the notice issued by 1st respondent — Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, to the petitioner under Rule 5in Chapter — 1part VII read with Sec 35/36 of Advocates Act, 1961.

.2. Relevant facts which resulted in issuance of the said notice may be submmarised thus:-

Late S.S. Mari Chettiar had six sons, and there was an interse dispute between them. They even thought of initiating legal proceedings by going to Court. At that time, some well wishers of the family suggested that it is a matter which has to be settled out of Court, and advocate Mr. Sarangan, Bangalore was appointed as Arbitrator. Petitioner herein, who is also an advocate, was closely connected with the family, both in view of his relation-ship and also in view of his appointment as Legal Advisor in various Companies run by the family. Petitioner, in view of his intimate connection with the family (not as an advocate) was also asked to co-ordinate with the Arbitrator, It is said that at the instance of the Arbitrator, a settlement deed was executed containing 17 pages with 26 clauses, and the same was prepared on 17. 1993. The document was signed by some of the parties and the same was entrusted to the petitioner for getting the signatures of the rival group. In the complaint, it is said that for nearly two years, petitioner did not get the signatures, and in the meanwhile, one of the beneficiaries under the deed also died. Later, when repeated requests were made, petitioner seems to have represented that the last page was missing and, therefore, he could not get the signature from the rival group. Subsequently, he added two more clauses to the deed and incorporating a photo copy of the original of the 17th page, and after getting the signatures of the concerned, returned the paper to the complainant. This is the sum and substance of the complaint filed by third respondent before the Bar Council. In the complaint, it is said that as a co-ordinator, he has no authority to add two more clauses without the consent of the Arbitrator and the other members of the family. It is also said that the non-return of the document intact is not proper and, therefore, proceedings will have to be initiated against him.

.3. As against the said contention, petitioner stated that he became a co-ordinator along with the Arbitrator not as a counselof anyone, and there was no advocate client relationship in dealing with the matter of the family. According to him, when the matter wassettled on the basis of family arrangement on the basis of a deed dated 17. 1993, he was entrusted with the document by other members of the family only as their agent to get the signature from the other group. Getting signatures of persons belonging to the other group cannot be the function of a Counsel. He also explained the circumstancesunder which the last page of the deed was lost, and the circumstances under which the two clauses had to be added to the settlement deed.He further said that those two clauses were added with authority from the Arbitrator, and there cannot be any question of professional misconduct in such cases.

4. In the impugned notice, the Bar Council, after extractingthe facts, passed a resolution which reads thus:-

“After careful consideration of the complaint and the comments, the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu concludes that the complainant has established a prima facie case of misconduct against the respondent and it has therefore referred the complaint to the Disciplinary Committee for disposal."

This notice is challenged by revision petitioner on various grounds the main ground being that the first respondent-Bar Council has not applied their mind before issuing the notice. There must be an application of mind to hold reason to believe that the advocate is guilty of professional misconduct, and that is lacking in this case.

5. I heard learned Senior Counsel for petitioner andalso learned counsel for c