AMITAVA LALA, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been made by the President, High Court Bar Association, Allahabad by appearing in person.
(2.) BY this writ petition he wants quashing of the show-cause notice dated 30.8.2009 issued by the Vice Chairman of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh. As per the notice the petitioner was called upon to give reply to show cause as to why a disciplinary proceeding should not be proceeded against him under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961. The contention of the petitioner is that the notice is unsustainable in nature since any decision has not been taken by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to issue the notice but the same is an individual action on the part of the Vice Chairman of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh.
(3.) NORMALLY the court does not interfere with the issuance of notice to show cause but when such show cause notice seems to be barred under any law, there is no embargo on the writ jurisdiction of this court with regard to interference of the notice. The petitioner has called upon to substantiate such facts on which, being prima satisfied, we have called upon Sri Pankaj Naqvi, learned counsel appearing for the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to take appropriate instruction and make submission before this court to which Mr. Naqvi has come forward with a communication of the Chairman of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh dated 29.9.2009 addressed to he Secretary of Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh from which it transpires that there was a proceeding on 20.9,.2009 debarring the petitioner from acting as an advocate for 10 years but the same has been kept in abeyance. However, Mr. Pankaj Naqvi is not in a position to submit any resolution of such nature or meeting or communication excepting the communication dated 29.9.2009 and the earlier show cause dated 30.8.2009. Against this background we are surprised to the conduct of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh in proceeding with the matter.;