J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is an advocate practicing in this court. He is aggrieved by the action of the 1st respondent Bar Council of Kerala in taking cognizance of a complaint filed by the 2nd respondent against him and initiating further proceedings under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961 for punishing him for misconduct. According to him, Ext.P1 complaint filed by the 2nd respondent, based on which Exts.P7 and P8 proceedings have now been initiated against the petitioner, does not disclose any misconduct whatsoever against the petitioner which authorises the 1st respondent to take further action in the matter. He therefore seeks the following reliefs:

“a) Call the entire records leading upto Exhibit P7 &

P8 from the 1st respondent and quash the entire proceedings pursuant to Exhibit P1 complaint and also quash Exhibit P1;

b) Declare that the entire proceedings on Exhibit P1

are duet to personal bias, ill-motivated and are

unsustainable;

c) Stay all further proceedings in Exhibit P1 and DC

Enquiry No.3 of 2008;

2. Both the respondents have filed a counter affidavit.

According to them, the writ petition is premature. The disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of Kerala has onl