The court considered the futility of continuing disciplinary proceedings against an advocate due to age and inactive practice, leading to the quashing of the notice of hearing.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call the records pertaining to the resolution No.140 of 2009 dated 21.06.2009 passed by the 2nd respondent herein, quash the same.)

1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the notice of hearing dated 21.6.2009, whereby the petitioner was asked to appear before the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu for hearing based on the complaint given by the 3rd respondent.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he is an Advocate, who was enrolled with the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu. A complaint was given by one Venkatasubbu, claiming to be the agent of the 3rd respondent, before the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu alleging professional misconduct against the petitioner. This complaint was taken on file in petition No.26/2005, by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner submitted his reply for the said complaint and the Bar Council through a resolution 17.06.2006, came to a conclusion that the complainant has not established a prima facie case of misconduct against the petitioner and accordingly, the complaint was dropped.

3. Aggrieved by the above decision taken by the Bar Council, the said Venkatasubbu filed a Revision Petition before the Bar Council of India and the Bar Council of India through order dated 26.08.2007, dismissed the Revision Petition.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent, thereafter gave an independent complaint against the petitioner before the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, on the very same set of allegations. This complaint was entertained and the Bar Council through resolution dated 21.6.2009 resolved to refer the complaint to the Disciplinary Committee for enquiry. Pursuant to the same, the impugned notice of hearing was issued by the 2nd respondent. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition has been filed before this Court.

5. Heard Mr.M.K.Kabir, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.C.K.Chandrasekaran, learned counsel for R2 and Mr.R.Kannan, learned counsel for R3.

6. On carefully going through the complaint given by the 3rd respondent, it can be seen that the 3rd respondent after explaining various facts, has alleged that the petitioner after having entered appearance on behalf of the 3rd respondent, started giving various complaints against the 3rd respondent on the behest of his wife and thereby, he was acting against the interest of his own client and thereby indulged in serious professional misconduct.

7. The earlier complaint was given by the agent of the 3rd respondent, on the very same set of allegations and the said complaint was dropped on the ground that no prima facie case was established and the same was also confirmed by the Bar Council of India in the Revision through Order dated 26.08.2007.

8. The main ground that was raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner was that there was no advocate - client relationship between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent and the above Orders have become final and is binding on the 3rd respondent and therefore, the 3rd respondent cannot be allowed to once again prosecute a complaint against the petitioner on the very same set of allegations. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, by bringing to the notice of this Court various documents filed by the 3rd respondent, submitted that there are abundant materials to proceed against the petitioner and the petitioner has to necessarily attend the enquiry before the Disciplinary Committee and he can always put forth his defence. The learned counsel submitted that there is absolutely no requirement to stall the proceedings even at the threshold, considering the allegations made against the petitioner. Hence, he sought for the dismissal of the writ petition.

9. The earlier complaint was given by the agent of the 3rd respondent and hence, the Bar Council of India, while dismissing t