R VIJAYAKUMAR Vs. K RAMU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Seeking to quash an enquiry pending on the file of the first respondent Bar Council of Tamil Nadu in d. C. C. No.25/2007 dated 20.2.2007, the petitioner has brought forth this writ petition for a writ of certiorari.

(2.) The affidavit in support of the writ petition and the affidavit filed by the second respondent in support of petition to vacate the stay, are perused. The Court heard the learned Counsel on either side.

(3.) The case of the petitioner in short is that he is a practicing Advocate in Madras; that a power of attorney was executed by one Kannappa Pillai and his brther Balu Pilli for sale of their immovable property; that apart from that, they have also executed an agreement for sale for a consideration of Rs.7,37,000/- pursuant to which the property was sold to the third parties; that the amount which would represent the consideration for sale of those property, has also been actually paid to them, and thus, the entire transaction came to an end; that while the matter stood thus, the second respondent and others issued a notice to the petitioner on 25.4.2006, stating that the father of the second respondent executed a power of attorney authorizing the petitioner to alienate the property measuring 66.67 cents in Vengambakkam Village, and the property was an ancestral property, and the second respondent is entitled for a share, and apart from that, the said power was obtained by the petitioner by coercion and undue influence; that it was also further averred therein that a criminal complaint has also been given in that regard, and the power of attorney originally executed in his favour, was also cancelled; that the said notice was replied by the petitioner; that thereafter, a notice was served upon him by the first respondent Bar Council stating that a complaint was given by the second respondent on 20.7.2006 for which the petitioner gave a detailed reply; but, no proceedings have been initiated thereon; that instead, a second notice was served upon him alleging that a complaint was received from the second respondent on 8.8.2006 and the disciplinary proceedings were to be initiated and calling for his explanation; and that under such circumstances, the petitioner was constrained to file this writ petition seeking to quash the same.