ORDER:

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. This Writ Petition is filed questioning the orders passed by the 2nd respondent in Complaint Case No.44 of 2022, dated 24.02.2023 imposing on the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the AP Advocates Welfare Fund for the benefit of Advocates and suspending the petitioner as an Advocate for a period of 3 months from the rolls of the Bar Council, and in default of the payment of the said amount, within a period of 30 days from that day, the suspended period would be extended by another 3 months thereafter.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, initially, the complaint was given by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 against the petitioner before the 1st respondent stating that he has gone back from the complaint under 164 Cr.P.C statement while giving evidence in C.C.No.22 of 2017 on the file of learned Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Nellore. Thus, he turns hostile. Because of that, the ACB lost its case. The 2nd respondent, while entertaining the Complaint Case No.44 of 2022, framed several issues and after hearing the complainant and the respondent therein/the petitioner herein deferred the issue of deciding whether he has committed any perjury or not in C.C No.1412 of 2019 pending on the file of II Additionla Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore, which is stayed by this Court in Crl.P No.4160 of 2019. Be that as it may, admittedly, the petitioner has undertaken certain works in the Janma Bhoomi programme as contractor, the 2nd respondent went into the role of the petitioner herein whether he can worked as a contractor to gain any monetory benefits out of such execution of works and whether he has violated the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961 and Bar Council of India Rules. As stated supra, the above asid punishment was imposed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this particular finding of the 2nd respondent is violitive of principles of natural justice, as no opportunity was given to the petitioner by framing such an issue. But, it is not disputed with regard to the participation of the petitioner in the said inquiry proceedings before the 2nd respondent.

5. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, submits that there is an express provision under Section 37 of the Advocates Act providing appellate jurisdiction to the Displinatry Committee of the Bar Council of India against the orders passed by the 2nd respondent herein. Aggrieved person can always knock the doors of the appellate authorities while exercising the statutory provisions. For which, the learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply, refers to the decision of the Honourable Appex Court reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 which is popularly known as whirlpool Corporation case. In which, the Honourable Appex Court observed that the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction when the alternative remedy is available. But, it has carved out certain exceptions like when there is a violation of Fundamental Rights or violation of the principle of natural justice or when authority exercised only the jurisdication without being vested or the vires of an Act is challenged. None of these grounds are available in this Writ Petition to show any indulgence by this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by circumventing the jurisdication of the Displinary Committee by the Bar Council of A.P. under Section 35(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961.

6. In view of the considered opinion of this Court, when the effective alternative remedy of appeal is available, it is not proper for this Court to go into the merits of the case, as it may prejudice the interests of the petitioner also. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Interim order, if any, deemed to have been vacated. It is open for the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy provided under law.

7. Acc