IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2010 / 1ST POUSHA 1932 WA.No. 2111 of 2010 --------------------- (AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.34403/2010 Dated 16/11/2010 ) APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------ C.D.JOHNY,S/O.DEVASSY, CHITTINAPPILLY HOUSE, G.C.D.A.COLONY,ALUVA,WORKING AS ADVOCATE, ALUVA. BY ADV. SMT.MEREENA JOSEPH RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE BAR COUNCIL OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,BAR COUNCIL OF KERALA BUILDING, ERNAKULAM. 2. KANNAN,S/O.K.VELAYUDHAN PILLAI, MADHURAMANGALAM NORTH GATE,VAIKOM. 3. D.ANILKUMAR,ADVOCATE,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM,RESIDING AT HARIPRIYA, NEAR KEERTHINAGAR JUNCTION,DESHABHIMANI ROAD, KOCHI-26. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J. CHELAMESWAR, CJ & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.A. No. 2111 of 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 22nd December, 2010 J U D G M E N T P.R. Ramachandran Menon, J The appellant/writ petitioner seeks to modify the verdict passed by the learned single Judge whereby the proceedings being pursued by the State Bar Council against the appellant/petitioner in respect of the alleged professional misconduct has been caused to be referred to the Bar Council of India as provided under Section 36B of the Advocates Act, 1961. The appellant has also sought for a stay of the impugned judgment as an interim relief. 2. Coming to the sequence of events, it is revealed from the proceedings on record that the Bar Council of Kerala, on coming across certain professional misconduct against the petitioner, had referred the matter to the concerned Disciplinary Committee who numbered the case as DC 35/09 and pursued further proceedings. In the course of such proceedings, the de W.A. No. 2111 of 2010 2 facto complainant was caused to be arrested and produced before the Disciplinary Committee, who in turn gave some incriminating statements against the writ petitioner, which is stated as not legally acceptable for want of jurisdiction. There is also a further case that the Disciplinary Committee appointed the third respondent as the Counsel of the Bar Council of Kerala to defend the proceedings, which is also stated as contrary to the Scheme of the statute, particularly since the power of the Bar Council or the Disciplinary Committee to appoint an Advocate under Rule 6 (2) of the Bar Council of India Rules is only to appoint an “Amicus Curiae”. 3. When the matter came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge, it was contended from the part of the State Bar Council that the period of 'one year' as contemplated under section 36B was not over, in so far as the party turned up pursuant to the notice issued, only much subsequently and that the 'date of initiation' of the proceedings is liable to be reckoned as the date of appearance of the party concerned. Taking note of the relevant provisions of law, the said contention raised by W.A. No. 2111 of 2010 3 the State Bar Council was repelled by the learned single Judge, holding that, pursuant to the reference made by the State Bar Council on 21.09.2009, notice was issued by the Disciplinary Committee on 29.10.2009 and this being the position, the 'date of initiation' was liable to be reckoned as “at least” as 29.10.2009. On computing the period of limitation as above, it was held that the stipulated period of one year was already over and the learned Judge arrived at a finding that the proceedings were liable to be referred to the Bar Council of India as provided under Section 36B of the Advocates Act, which was ordered accordingly. 4. The writ petitioner is stated as aggrieved of the observation in the verdict as to the 'date of initiation' of the proceedings mentioned as 29.10.2009, contending that it should have been reckoned as 21.09.2009, i.e. the date of reference to the Disciplinary Committee. Reliance is also sought to be placed on Rule 17(2) of the Bar Council of India Rules, in this regard. There is a further grievance that the challenge raised by the petitioner against the appointment of the third respondent W.A. No. 2111 of 2010 4 as the Counsel for the Bar council, has not been dealt with by the learned Single Judge. 5. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner at length. 6. Going by the contents of the judgment, it is very much obvious that the observations were made by the learned Single Judge very cautiously, using the expression as “at least 29.10.2009”, when notice was issued by the Disciplinary Committee, had to be taken as the date of initiation of the proceedings and if one year was to be counted on that basis, the said period had expired by then. This clearly shows that no specific finding was arrived at whether the 'date of initiation' was 21.09.2009 or 29.10.2009. The observation made was more in support of the contentions raised by the petitioner and to controvert the stand taken by the State Bar Council that the date of initiation of the proceedings was liable to be reckoned as the date of appearance of the party, which however was rightly repelled. 7. In the above circumstance, we find that there is absolutely no merit in the appeal, especially when the matter W.A. No. 2111 of 2010 5 has already been caused to be referred to the Bar Council of India, as provided under Section 36B of the Advocates' Act. Similarly, with regard to the challenge as to the appointment of the third respondent as the Counsel for the State Bar Council, the said issue also is no more relevant, as the proceedings have already been ordered to be transferred to the Bar Council of India as mentioned above. No interference is warranted and the Writ appeal is dismissed, however making it clear that we have not expressed anything on merits with regard to the contentions raised in this Appeal. It is for the appellant to pursue the matter before the Bar Council of India, in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. J. CHELAMESWAR, CHIEF JUSTICE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk