F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.

These two writ petitions have been filed by a practising Advocate of this Court by way of Public Interest Litigation.

2. In W.P.No.17353 of 2009, the prayer is for issuance of a writ of Quo Warranto directing the first respondent to explain under what authority he holds office of the Chairman of Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry and continue to hold the said post.

3. In W.P.No.17354 of 2009, the prayer is for issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the Bar Council of India, New Delhi, the third respondent herein, to initiate appropriate action against the first respondent within a time frame as directed by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Pande reported in 1998 (7) SCC 248.

4. According to the petitioner, an Anticipatory Bail petition filed by a medical practitioner came up before Honble Mr.Justice R.Ragupathy, as he then was, on 29.06.2009; that the first respondent appeared on behalf of the accused and argued the case; that the learned Judge was not inclined to grant the Anticipatory Bail and was about to dismiss the petition and at that point of time, the first respondent alleged that the learned Judge was merely passing orders on the basis of the submissions of the prosecutor alone. In the said case it is stated that the prosecutor was representing the CBI. It is further alleged that in the course of the hearing, the learned Judge stated that "A Union Minister had called me to exert influence in favour of accused and to release the petitioner/accused on anticipatory bail. You yourself know everything".

5. The petitioner would therefore allege that the first respondent must be aware of the name of the Union Minister and the conduct of the first respondent in making aspersions against the learned Judge was gross contempt and interfered with the administration of justice. He would further allege that the first respondent being the Chairman of the State Bar Council, his behaviour amounts to contempt of Court.

6. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is further alleged that the media reports revealed that the learned Judge addressed a letter to the Honble The Chief Justice, that as per the information, the first respondent who appeared for the accused in the Anticipatory Bail petition met the learned Judge in his Chambers and pressurised the learned Judge to grant the relief to the accused and that he also contacted a Union Minister in his cell phone and wanted the learned Judge to speak to that Union Minister. According to the petitioner, such a conduct displayed by the first respondent also calls for contempt action.

7. It is further alleged that since the first respondent is holding a statutory office, his conduct in attempting to interfere with the course of justice by using the name of a Union Minister for achieving an illegal action and therefore, he is disqualified from holding the office of the Chairman of Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry. According to the petitioner, by virtue of the gravity of the conduct indulged in by the first respondent, his continuance in the office of Chairman, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry would injure and damage the reputation of the said institution.

8. Thepetitioner by making reference to the various newspaper reports would contend that apart from initiating suo moto contempt action against the first respondent, necessary Quo Warranto should be issued calling upon the first respondent to explain as to under what authority he is holding the office of the Chairman, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry, apart from necessary directions to the Bar Council of India to initiate appropriate action against him.

9. When the writ petitions were moved before a learned Single Judge on 17.07.2009, at the S.R. stage for maintainability, the learned Single Judge on noting that the petitioner has filed the writ petitions by way of Public Interest Litigation, directed the Registry to post the