ORDER :

[R. Mahadevan, J.]

1. The relief sought in this writ petition is to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to hear the petition in I.A. No. 04 of 2020 filed by the petitioner to set aside the exparte order dated 14.12.2019 made in DCC No.345 of 2018, on merits, in exercise of the powers conferred under Clause 7 (2) of the Chapter I Part VII of the Bar Council of India Rules, by excluding the period between 08.06.2019 and 14.09.2019 under Section 36 B of the Advocates Act, 1961, (in short, “the Act”).

2. The case of the petitioner as projected in the writ petition is as follows:

2.1. The petitioner was enrolled as an advocate and has been practicing in the Courts at Erode. During the course of his practice, the second respondent approached the petitioner and stated that he met with an accident on 16.07.2015 and suffered grievous injuries in his left leg; and therefore, he intended to file a claim petition before the competent Court as per the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him.

2.2. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a claim petition on behalf of the second respondent. During the pendency of the same, at the request of the petitioner, in consultation with the second respondent, the claim petition was posted before the National Lok Adalat for exploring the possibility of settlement. During the hearing before the National Lok Adalat, the second respondent agreed to settle the dispute for Rs.2,67,930/- with the insurer and signed a settlement memo and an award was also passed to that effect. A cheque for the agreed claim amount of Rs.2,67,930/- was issued to the claimant/second respondent herein on 13.10.2016 as compensation.

2.3. After receipt of the cheque amount, the petitioner demanded his professional fee of Rs.25,000/- for having filed the claim petition and prosecuted it. However, the second respondent failed to fulfil his promise made to the petitioner and did not pay any amount towards professional fee. On the contrary, he gave a complaint to the first respondent under Section 35 of the Act alleging that the petitioner has committed professional misconduct.

2.4. The complaint made by the second respondent was taken on file as DCC No.345 of 2018 and notice dated 28.07.2017 was issued to the petitioner. Upon receipt of the same, the petitioner submitted his detailed explanation and also entered appearance through his counsel Mr.C.Kulandaivel, Advocate, Chennai. Thereafter, on 27.04.2019, the petitioner filed his counter statement and was regularly appearing all the hearings of the case, along with his counsel. However, on 13.07.2019, the petitioner's counsel informed to him that the petitioner need not be present before the first respondent as the Elected Committee would take over the disciplinary proceedings; and that, he shall appear for enquiry, only after receipt of a fresh notice.

2.5. According to the petitioner, he did not receive the fresh notice dated 14.09.2019 issued by the Disciplinary Committee and the notice issued to his counsel was also received by some other person. As a result, on 09.11.2019, when the case was taken up for hearing, there was no representation for the petitioner, consequent to which, he was called absent and set exparte. Following the same, on 14.12.2019, an order was passed directing the petitioner to pay the compensation amount of Rs.2,68,000/- along with interest at 12% p.a. to the second respondent within a period of one month, besides, suspending him from practicing as an advocate for a period of two years. It was also observed by the first respondent that in default of payment of the said sum of Rs.2,68,000/- along with interest, the petitioner shall undergo suspension for further period of one year.

2.6. Aggrieved by the order dated 14.12.2019 passed by the first respondent, the petitioner filed two petitions viz., seeking an order of interim stay and to set aside the exparte order dated 14.12.2019. By