- (1.)DELAY condoned. Leave granted. The Bar Council of India is in appeal against the impugned order and direction of a learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court dtd. 20/12/2000.
(2.)THE respondent, an advocate, filed an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the legality of the order of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India. After serving a copy of the same on the Bar Council of India as well as other respondents intimating therein that the matter would be moved on a particular date; on the date the matter was posted, the learned Single Judge allowed the prayer of the respondent, even in the absence of the Bar Council of India, and set aside the order of the Bar Council of India with certain further directions. It is this order, which is the subject-matter of challenge in this appeal.
Mr. Rao, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Bar Council of India contends that the impugned order being one without noticing the Bar Council of India, the same cannot be sustained. He further contends that in view of an alternative remedy available to the respondent a writ petition could not have been entertained. The respondent appearing in person vehemently contends that in view of the provisions contained in Rule 26 of the Rules of the High Court at Calcutta relating to application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India read with Rule 35 thereof, it was not necessary to issue any further notice to the Bar Council of India, once a copy of the application to be filed had been served. Therefore, there has been no illegality with the impugned order setting aside the order of the Bar Council of India at that stage.

(3.)ON examining the aforesaid provisions of the rule, we are, however, unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the submissions made by the respondent-in-person.