SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, J. ( 1 ) THE FACTS RELEVANT AND NECESSARY FOR RESOLVING THE CONTROVERSY RAISED IN THIS WRIT petition, IN BRIEF ARE: the PETITIONER IS A PRACTICING ADVOCATE. THE THIRD RESPONDENT FILED COMPLAINT ALLEGING misconduct ON THE PART OF THE PETITIONER. THE PETITIONER RECEIVED A NOTICE dated 7-2-1991 FROM THE FIRST RESPONDENT FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING ON 10-3-1991. DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE RESPONDENT NO. 1 IT WAS RECONSTITUTED and THE PROCEEDINGS WERE CONTINUED AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 36-A OF THE ADVOCATES act, 1961. ON 19-1-1992 THE PETITIONER FILED A MEMO STATING THAT THE PROCEEDINGS pending BEFORE RESPONDENT NO. 1 STOOD TRANSFERRED TO THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA under SECTION 36-B (L) OF THE ACT, AS THE COMPLAINT WAS MADE ON 26-7-1990 AND THE period OF ONE YEAR HAD EXPIRED ON 27-7-1991. THUS, THE PETITIONER CONTENDED THAT THE first RESPONDENT HAD NO JURISDICTION TO PROCEED WITH THE ENQUIRY. THE FIRST RESPONDENT passed THE ORDER ON THE SAID MEMO ON 19-1-1992 REJECTING THE SAME HOLDING THAT THE starting POINT OF LIMITATION UNDER SECTION 36-B OF THE ACT WAS 27-1-1991 BEFORE THE disciplinary COMMITTEE NO. III PRIOR TO ITS RECONSTITUTION AND THAT THE LIMITATION FOR the RECONSTITUTED COMMITTEE HAD ONLY COMMENCED FROM 18-8-1991. THUS, THE BAR under SECTION 36-B DID NOT APPLY. THE COPY OF THE SAID ORDER IS FILED AT ANNEXURE-C, which IS SOUGHT TO BE QUASHED IN THIS WRIT PETITION. THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE EVENTS WHICH HAVE BEARING ON THE DECISION TO BE TAKEN IN this CASE ARE: