JUDGMENT Heard the petitioner in person. The petitioner challenges a communication sent to him by the State Bar Council of M.P. on 22nd September, 1992, directing the petitioner not to practise at Alot district Ratlam till the petitioner gets his name transferred from the roll of the State Bar Council Gujrat to the roll of the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh. In paragraph 3, the petitioner has stated that he has started practising in Alot since 1990. From the averments in the petition it is clear that the petitioner is regularly practising at Alot in M.P. The petitioner applied to the Bar Association, Alot for enrolling him as a member. On this, on 23.2.1991 the State Bar Association wrote to the petitioner that he should get himself enrolled with the M.P. State Bar Council and get his name transferred from the Gujrat State Bar Council to the M.P. State Bar Council and his application would be considered only after this is done. The petitioner instead of complying with the requirements of law pressed into service section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 and contended that he had a right to practise anywhere in India. The petitioner also contended that he had applied for transfer of his name from the roll of Bar Council Gujrat to the Bar Council of M.P. and that is pending with the Bar Council of India. Since the Bar Council of India is not a party to this case, there is no question of issuing any direction to it to consider or expedite the application of the petitioner. So far as S. 30 of the Advocates Act is concerned, it is yet to be enforced. In these circumstances, we find nothing illegal in the action of the State Bar Council in restraining the petitioner from practising at Alot Distt. Ratlam. The petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.