By the Court.—Heard Sri Ashok Sharma, learned Advocate in support of this petition and Sri Pankaj Naqvi, learned Advocate who appeared for respondent No. 1.

2. By means of this writ petition petitioner has prayed for quashing of the resolution dated 28.3.2010 of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh as well as subsequent proceedings pending before the disciplinary committee bearing Case No. 55 of 2010 (Smt. Sujada Yadav v. Anand Tiwari and others).

3. When the matter was entertained on 13.12.2010 learned counsel for respondent No. 1 sought time to obtain instructions and to give information to the Court about certain factual aspects.

4. Sri Naqvi, learned Advocate on the basis of the instructions so received and the documents with him argued the matter.

5. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on receipt of the complaint about misconduct of an Advocate the Bar Council in routine way referred the matter to the disciplinary committee without considering the merits as per provisions of Section 31(1) of The Advocates Act and thus that is not justified. Submission is that the Bar Council did not call any comment from the petitioner prior to referring the matter to the disciplinary committee as provided under the relevant Rules of Bar Council of India Rules. It is on the aforesaid premises challenge is to the reference by the Bar Council to the disciplinary committee about the trial of the misconduct of the petitioners.

6. In support of the submission reliance has been placed on the decision given by the Special Bench of this Court in the matter of H an Advocate reported in AIR 1941 Alld 280.

7. In response to the aforesaid submission learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits that argument of routine reference by the Bar Council to the disciplinary committee is totally misconceived and it is after prima facie satisfaction about the merits in the complaint and after recording satisfaction the matter is referred to the disciplinary committee who is to issue notice to the Advocate and after getting reply is to decide the matter in its own way, in accordance with law.

8. Submission is that exercise by the Bar Council is neither arbitrary nor illegal. Submission is that this petition has been filed at a pre-mature stage just to judge the merits of the pending matter before the disciplinary committee who is to take appropriate decision in the light of pleadings, evidence and otherwise after hearing both sides.

9. Decision on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no application to the facts of the present case.

10. It is on the aforesaid premises, in the light of the facts as is available before the Court, we are to deal with the same.

11. Before, we are to refer the facts of the present case so as to test the action of the Bar Council impugned before this Court to be justified, correct and arbitrary, we are to refer certain provisions of The Advocates Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act and the Rules known as Bar Council of India, hereinafter referred to as the Rules, framed under The Advocates Act, 1961 which may deal and may explain to the legal submission as advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

12. The Advocates Act was introduced to amend and consolidate the law relating to legal practitioners and to provide for the constitution of Bar Councils and an All India Bar.

13. Chapter V of the Act deals with the conduct of Advocates. Section 35 of the Act refers about punishment of the Advocates for the misconduct. Provisions as contained in Section 35(1) of the Act is hereby quoted-

“35. Punishment of advocates for misconduct.—(1) Where on receipt of a complaint or otherwise a State Bar Council has reason to believe that any advocate on its roll has been guilty of professional or other misconduct, it shall refer the case for disposal to its disciplinary committee.”

14. Disciplinary committee after giving advocate concerned an opportunity of being heard so as