ORDER :

N.KIRUBAKARAN, J)

The matter was heard through ''Video Conference''.

“Whether Lawyers' body can itself violate the Law enacted by the Parliament ?”

The above question arises in this matter, as the Petitioner alleges that the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short) enacted by the Parliament has been violated by the Chairman assuming certain powers, which have not been vested with him as per the Act.

2. The Petitioner is an Advocate practising after getting enrolled before the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu in the year 1990. A complaint was given by the Second Respondent, alleging professional misconduct against the Petitioner, as he had engaged the Petitioner for rendering professional services for his case. The complaint in Complaint No.34 of 2018 was taken on file, on 20.12.2018, by the First Respondent. The First Respondent /Bar Council issued a notice, for which the Petitioner gave a reply on 08.05.2019. Considering the allegations made in the reply, the First Respondent passed Resolution No. 436 of 2019 dated 14.12.2019 for taking the Complaint on file in D.C.C. No.3 of 2020 and referred to Learned Disciplinary Committee No.VI.

3. After issuance of summons, the Petitioner appeared before the Committee and filed his Statement of defence, along with necessary documents. The Committee had framed three charges in D.C.C. No. 3 of 2020 on 28.11.2020. After framing of charges, the Second Respondent has to file a Proof-Affidavit. However, the Second Respondent has been dragging on the matter till date, in spite of being given sufficient opportunities.

4. When things stand so, the Petitioner received a fresh notice on 18.03.2021, from the First Respondent / Bar Council, for his appearance on 10.04.2021. On appearance only, the Petitioner came to know that D.C.C. No.3 of 2020 was already transferred to Learned Disciplinary Committee No.X, without any reason or notice to the Petitioner. Aggrieved by that only, the present Writ Petition has been filed, challenging the proceedings of the Frist Respondent / Bar Council dated 10.03.2021, transferring the Complaint in D.C.C. No.3 of 2020 from Learned Disciplinary Committee VI, Chennai to Learned Disciplinary Committee No.X, Chennai.

5. Heard Mr. V.Srikanth, Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. C.K.Chandrasekaran, Learned counsel appearing for the First Respondent, and perused the materials placed on record.

6. As it is evident, there is no dispute with regard to the facts of the case. It is admitted by all parties that the Second Respondent filed the Complaint against the Petitioner /Advocate, for alleged professional misconduct. The said complaint was filed before the First Respondent /Bar Council on 20.12.2018. After getting a reply from the Petitioner on 08.05.2019, the First Respondent passed Resolution No.436 of 2019, alleging that the Complainant /Second Respondent has made out a prima facie case against the Petitioner, and referred the matter in D.C.C. No.3 of 2020 to the Learned Disciplinary Committee No.VI. As stated earlier, after filing the Statement of defence by the Petitioner, charges were framed on 28.11.2020. Thereafter, the Second Respondent has to file a Proof-Affidavit as per the procedure. As stated in the Petition, in spite of giving opportunities of six hearings, Proof-Affidavit of the Second Respondent has not been filed till date.

7. While so, without notice to the Petitioner, the First Respondent /Bar Council transferred the case /proceedings from the Learned Disciplinary Committee VI, Chennai to Learned Disciplinary Committee X, Chennai vide order dated 10.03.2021.

8. According to Mr. V.Srinkanth, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the impugned order has to be set aside, as it has been passed

1. without notice to the Petitioner

2. for lacking of reason to be stated in the impugned order and

3. for violation of Section 35 of the Advocates Act.

The aforesaid contentions are forced.

9. A perusal of the impugned order would show t