IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 7TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 18TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1112 of 2011(L) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- B.SATHIQ, ADVOCATE, KERALA LAW CHAMBER VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 035. BY ADV. SMT.M.A.ZOHRA SRI.R.S.MADHU SRI.MAHESH ANANDAKUTTAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. BAR COUNCIL OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, BAR COUNCIL BHAVAN HIGH COURT CAMPUS, ERNAKULAM KOCHI 682 031. 2. THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE NO.3 BAR COUNCIL BHAVAN HIGH COURT CAMPUS, ERNAKULAM KOCHI 682 031. 3. S.KOLAPPAN, TC 26/1642,SREEKRISHNA VILAS STATUE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. ADV. GRASHIUS KURIAKOSE, SC FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 1112 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 7th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is an Advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of Kerala. On a complaint made against him, he is facing disciplinary action. According to the petitioner, initially he was set exparte by the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council. Thereafter he made an application to set aside the exparte order, which was rejected by Ext.P3. Subsequently, petitioner submitted Ext.P4 application for review of Ext.P3 order. This application filed under Section 44 of the Advocates Act has been numbered as RP No.3/10. Complaining that during the pendency of the review application, proceedings against him are going to be finalised by the Bar Council of Kerala, the writ petition has been filed. 2. Today when the matter came up, standing counsel appeared on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. According to the learned standing counsel, since the date of initiation of proceedings against the petitioner, one year period has already elapsed, in view of the provisions contained in Section 36B of the WPC No. 1112/11 :2 : Advocates Act 1961, it has been decided to forward the entire proceedings against the petitioner to the Bar Council of India. Therefore, it is submitted that there is no question of respondents 1and 2 finalising the proceedings against the petitioner. Now that such a submission has been made by the standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2, I record the said submission and close the writ petition on that basis. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp