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