AN ADVOCATE Vs. DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE FACTS RELEVANT AND NECESSARY FOR RESOLVING THE CONTROVERSY RAISED IN THIS WRIT PETITION IN BRIEF ARE: THE PETITIONER IS A PRACTICING ADVOCATE. THE THIRD RESPONDENT FILED COMPLAINT ALLEGING MISCONDUCT ON THE PART OF THE PETITIONER. THE PETITIONER RECEIVED A NOTICE DATED 7-2-1991 FROM THE FIRST RESPONDENT FIXING THE DALE OF HEARING ON 10-3-1991. DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE RESPONDENT NO. 1 IT WAS RECONSTITUTED AND THE PROCEEDINGS WERE CONTINUED AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 36-A OF THE ADVOCATES ACT, 1961. ON 19-1-1992 THE PETITIONER FILED A MEMO STALING THAT THE PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE RESPONDENT NO. 1 STOOD TRANSFERRED TO THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA UNDER SECTION 36-B(1) OF THE ACT, AS THE COMPLAINT WAS MADE ON 26-7-1990 AND THE PERIOD OF ONE YEAR HAD EXPIRED ON 27-7-1991. THUS, THE PETITIONER CONTENDED THAT THE FIRST RESPONDENT HAD NO JURISDICTION TO PROCEED WITH THE ENQUIRY. THE FIRST RESPONDENT PASSED THE ORDER ON THE SAID MEMO ON 19-1-1992 REJECTING THE SAME HOLDING THAT THE SLARLING POINT OF LIMILALION UNDER SECTION 36-B OF THE ACT WAS 27-1-1991 BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE NO. III PRIOR TO ITS RECONSTITUTION AND THAT THE LIMILALION FOR THE RECONSLIIULCD COMMITTEE HAD ONLY COMMENCED FROM 18-8-1991. THUS, THE BAR UNDER SCCLION 36-B DID NOT APPLY, THE COPY OF THE SAID ORDER IS FILED AT ANNEXURC-C, WHICH IS SOUGHT TO BE QUASHED IN THIS WRIT PCTILION. THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE EVENLS WHICH HAVE BEARING ON THE DECISION LO BE TAKEN IN THIS CASE ARE: DATE 25-6-1990 EVENT LODGING OF THE COMPLAINT BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT. 16-9-1990 STALE BAR COUNCIL RESOLVED TO REFER THE COMPLAINT TO DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE. 27-1-1991 DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE NO. III INITIATED PROCEEDINGS ON THE COMPLAINT BY DIRECTING LO ISSUE NOLICCS LO THE PARTIES. 21-7-1991 DISCIPLINARY COMMILLCE NO. III (BEFORE RCCONSIITUTION) PASSED ORDER FOR TRASSFER OF COMPLAINL LO ANY OTHER DISCIPLINARY COMMILLCE. 18-8-1991 THE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS CONTINUED BY THE RECONSTITUTED DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE NO. III.

(2.) THE THIRD RESPONDENT HAS FILED THE SLALCMENL OF OBJECTIONS EVEN TOUCHING THE MERITS OF THE PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDCNL. RELATIVE MERITS OF THE COMPLAINT AND DEFENCE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE STATRD FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISPOSAL OF THIS WRIT PETILION. THE THIRD RESPONDENL HAS CONTENDED THAI IF THE PETILIONER WAS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 19-1-1992 HE SHOULD HAVE PREFERRED THE WRIT PETITION AT THE EARLIEST AND HAVING PARLICIPALED IN THE ENQUIRY, AL THE STAGE OF REACHING CONCLUSION, HE HAS COME UP WITH IHIS WRIL PERITION. THE CONDUCT OF THE PCLILIONER HAVING KEPT QUICT BELWECN 19-1-1992 AND 18-6-1992 DEMONSIRALCS THE SPECULATIVE IDEAS OF THE PETITIONER. THUS, THE THIRD RESPONDENT HAS PRAYED FOR THE DISMISSAL OF THE WRIT PETITION.

(3.) SRI K.R.D. KARANTH, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER URGED THAT THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE NO. III INITIATED PROCEEDINGS ON THE COMPLAINT OF RESPONDENT NO. 3 BY DIRECTING TO ISSUE NOTICES TO THE PARTIES ON 27-1-1991 ON THE BASIS OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 16-9-1990 PASSED BY THE STATE BAR COUNCIL REFERRING THE COMPLAINT OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO IT. CITING THE DIVISION BENCH DECISION OF THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF KARNATAKA STATE BAR COUNCIL, BANGALORE AND ANOTHER V H, SUBRARNANYA JOIS AND OTHERS, 1992(2) KAR. L.J. 152: ILR1992 KAR. 1377 HE SUBMITTED THAT THE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS BEFORE RESPONDENT NO. 1 HAVING NOT BEEN CONCLUDED AND THE COMPLAINT HAVING NOT BEEN DISPOSED OF BY RESPONDENT NO. 1-COMMITTCE WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE ON WHICH RESPONDENT NO. 1 INITIATED THE PROCEEDINGS, SECTION 36-B(1) OF THE ACT IS ATTRACTED TO THE CASE ON HAND AND THE PROCEEDINGS STOOD TRANSFERRED TO THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA. ADMITTEDLY, RESPONDENT NO. 1 INITIATED THE PROCEEDINGS ON 27-1-1991. THE PERIOD OF ONE YEAR HAS COME TO AN END ON 27-1-1992. HENCE, IT MAY BE DECLARED THAT PROCEEDINGS IN D.C.E. NO. 31 OF 1991 ON THE FILE OF THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE NO. 3 OF THE KARNATAKA STATE BAR COUNCIL STOOD TRANSFERRED TO THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA.