The main legal point established in the judgment is that a complaint motivated to keep advocates away from their clients constitutes professional misconduct and warrants exemplary costs.

1. The petitioners are active practitioners of law, enrolled with the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry. They have come up with these writ petitions, challenging the resolutions passed by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry, for referring the complaint made by the second respondent in these writ petitions, to the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council for disposal after due enquiry.

2. I have heard Mr .R. Krishnamurthy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. S.R. Rajagopal, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent-Bar Council and Mr. R. Raghunandan, the second respondent appearing as a party-in-person.

3. These writ petitions were actually admitted on 10.9.2009 and an interim stay of further proceedings was also granted. After about four years, the writ petitions came up for final hearing before me. Though the second respondent was served with notice, he had not entered appearance. Therefore, the writ petitions were taken up for final disposal by me and by an order dated 05.4.2013, the writ petitions were allowed by me.

4. Thereafter, the second respondent herein came up with applications in Review Application Nos.1 and 2 of 2014, seeking a review of the order passed by me on 05.4.2013 in both the writ petitions. The review was sought by the second respondent in these writ petitions, on the ground that he did not have an opportunity to contest the writ petitions. Therefore, by an order dated 10.3.2014, I allowed the review applications and re-called the order dated 05.4.2013 passed in both the writ petitions. Thereafter, the second respondent filed a counter to the main writ petitions along with a set of documents. Therefore, the writ petitions were heard, on the basis of the pleadings, documents filed by the petitioners and the second respondent and also the contentions advanced.

5. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above writ petitions are as follows:

(a) The second respondent herein lodged a complaint with the first respondent on 17.10.2008, against the petitioners in these two writ petitions. The gist of the complaint of the second respondent was that he is a shareholder of a Company by name Sri Krishna Tiles and Potteries (Madras) Limited. The said Company owned land of the extent of about 34 acres. According to the second respondent, the said property is the subject matter of a series of litigation, including civil suits, writ petitions etc. But it appears that the said property was sold to a Company by name Ozone Projects Private Limited, by two Sale Deeds registered as document Nos. 981 and 982 of 2006. The grievance of the second respondent is that the purchaser obtained legal opinion from the writ petitioners herein who are Advocates. On the basis of the legal opinion tendered by the writ petitioners to the purchaser, the property was purchased. According to the second respondent, the act of the writ petitioners in advising their clients to purchase the property involved in litigation, amounted to a professional or other misconduct.

(b) The complaint filed by the second respondent on 17.10.2008 against the writ petitioners, was taken on file by the Bar Council as complaint No.125 of 2008. The Bar Council issued notices to the writ petitioners and the writ petitioners filed their objections to the complaint lodged. The complaint filed by the second respondent and the objections filed by the writ petitioners were placed before the Bar Council in its meeting held on 21.6.2009.

(c) In the meeting, the Bar Council passed a Resolution bearing No.45 of 2009. The Resolution reads as follows:

“On perusal of the complaint and reply, it appears that the complaint relates to grabbing of land. The respondent appears to have abetted the deal by giving wrong legal opinion. The allegation made against the respondent is being a serious one, needs to be investigated in detail. Therefore, the Council has reason to believe that the respondent-Advocate is guilty of professional mi