1. The petitioner joined the service in the Registry of Madras High Court, on 07.03.1963. Without intimating the High Court or getting prior permission, she joined three years Law degree course in SLSRC, Havanur College of Law during academic year 19841987. According to her, she attended the Evening College by securing attendance during weekend and public holidays. On completion of course, she was awarded Law Degree and the Registry of High Court, Madras, by Official Memorandum in Roc. No.945/98-Estt.IV, dated 14.07.1999, ratified the action of the petitioner in having joined in the Law College at Bangalore and obtained Law Degree Certificat from the Bangalore University in the year 1987, without obtaining prior permission of this Registry. After her superannuation, as per Section 24 of the Advocates Act, she enrolled herself as an Advocate on the role of Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry on 2.5.2002 and the Certificate of Enrolment dated 02.05.2002 along with Identity Card was awarded. While so, the petitioner received a communication dated 17.12.2002, from the first respondent cancelling her enrolment. Aggrieved over the same, she has come forward with the writ petition seeking to quash the said order.

2. While admitting the Writ Petition on 20.12.2002, this Court granted interim stay. Thereafter, the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu filed a petition seeking to Vacate the order of the interim stay. However, this Court by order dated 21.08.2003 made the interim stay absolute.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that when the first respondent was satisfied about the qualification of the petitioner for enrolment and having enrolled her, it is not open for the Bar Council to cancel the same, citing Section 26(2) of the Advocates Act. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.3983 of 2004 in the case of R.Kaaruppan Vs. Dhanapalraj.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/Bar Council of Tamil Nadu submitted that the petitioner had already filed a Review Application before the Bar Council of India and challenging the order impugned in this writ petition has written a letter to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu dated 18.12.2002 praying for deferring the further proceedings and communications. He further submitted that neither the petitioner nor the respondent are in a position to state about the ultimate disposal given by the Bar Council of India. Having availed the alternative statutory remedy it is not open for the petitioner to approach this Court in filing this Writ Petition. In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, relied on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court dated 23.11.2012 in Writ Appeal No.2439 of 2012 in the case ofV.Rajaram Vs. The Law Secretary, Law Department and others.

5. I have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the documents available on record.

6. The issue arises for my consideration is:-Whether the writ petition is maintainable and whether the petitioner has already availed the alternative remedy under the Bar Council of India Act?

7. It is well settled that if any member is aggrieved by any order passed by the State Bar Council, the remedy for the advocate is to make an appeal to the Bar Council of India under Section 37 of the Advocates Act, 1961 and not before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also well settled that when the party aggrieved has got an alternative remedy which is more efficacy in general, this Court will not entertain the writ petition in respect of the same. However, there are certain exceptions to the said self imposed restriction. One such exception is violation of principles of natural justice. If the party aggrieved complains that the impugned order came to be passed without following the principles of natural justice the High Court instead of driving him to avail th