Judgment :- N.K. JAIN, CJ., 1. One Dr. G. Krishnamurthy, an advocate practising in this Court, has filed this writ petition with the allegation that the second respondent, Mr. R. Karuppan, after assuming the office as President, Madras High Court Advocates Association started acting as the sole proprietor of the first respondent Association. He suo motu called the General Body meetings and with the assistance of few members conducted meetings and gave publicity as if some resolutions were passed. In the General Body meeting held on 23.11.2000, the two Secretaries, one librarian and seven executive members did not participate. More particularly, no proper notice was issued to hold the general body meeting mentioned above, in which the President declared to have a boycott of Court on 24.11.2000 with the help of non-members. He was conducting the meetings on every alternative day in a similar fashion. He gave news reports constantly as if resolutions were passed by the Association/first respondent. It is also alleged that the image of the institution has deteriorated particularly with the issuing of the alleged news report on 12.12.2000 to the effect that a resolution seeking the impeachment of the Honourable the Chief Justice of India was passed. According to the writ petitioner, the alleged meeting was not legally held as no proper notice was issued, and no valid resolution was passed. It is also stated that 1/3rd quorum, which is required as per law, was not there. It is also alleged that all advocates including senior members of the Bar and two secretaries, one librarian and other executive members were not satisfied with the functioning of the second respondent and though he is creating such a bad impression, respondents 3 to 6 were not taking any suo moto action for contempt and in this way, Mr. R. Karuppan is tarnishing the image of the Association and causing hindrance to the administration of justice. In such a fact situation, the writ petitioner has filed this PIL for a direction to regulate the functioning of the first respondent as per rules in a befitting manner. He has also prayed to restrain the second respondent from performing his duties. He filed W.M.Ps. In such a fact situation, the writ petitioner has filed this PIL for a direction to regulate the functioning of the first respondent as per rules in a befitting manner. He has also prayed to restrain the second respondent from performing his duties. He filed W.M.Ps. to implead the Secretaries of the Association as the respondents 7 and 8, to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to produce the minutes book pertaining to the period May 1999 to December 2000, of the first respondent and to grant ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents 1 and 2 from pursuing the matter about the issue of age of the Honourable the Chief Justice of India. 2. On 21.12.2000, this Court issued notice of motion to the Association and also the respondents 2, 3 and 5, returnable on 8.1.2001. This Court also observed that it would not be proper to pass any order on the injunction petition without hearing the second respondent. This Court also directed respondents 1 and 2 to produce the relevant records relating to the calling of the General Body and Executive Committee Meetings conducted by the second respondent and the resolutions so passed. On 9.2.2001, Mr. R. Karuppan, the second respondent was not present. An affidavit, showing the proof of service was filed. However, at the request of the Secretary of the first respondent, the matter was adjourned to 15.2.2001 for filing counter and producing records as per the earlier order dated 21.12.2000. No counter was filed nor the records were produced on 15.2.2001 nor was Mr. R. Karuppan present despite service. However, his junior Mr. Nister Hakeem was present and sought two weeks time to file counter. The Secretary was also present. While adjourning the case, it was observed that it was strange to note that the Secretary had not been able to produce the records, which were available with the Manager of the Association, and this Court directed the Secretary to produce the records on 23.2.2001. 3. On 23.2.2001, the second respondent was present, however, without complying with the order of this Court for producing documents, as stated above, he filed a counter affidavit. He submitted that although this Court could see the records, the writ petition was not maintainable and that too filed by the present writ petitioner, who has no good record. Three weeks time was sought for to comply with the order of this Court. He submitted that although this Court could see the records, the writ petition was not maintainable and that too filed by the present writ petitioner, who has no good record. Three weeks time was sought for to comply with the order of this Court. Accordingly, the second respondent was granted three weeks time to produce the bye-laws and the records of the Association. However, it was made clear, that in case the bye-laws and records of the Association were not produced, serious view would be taken and the maintainability of the writ petition would be heard at the next hearing, as also the impleading petition. The matter was posted on 16.3.2001, further posted to 28.3.2001 but only on 9.4.2001., records were produced. The arguments were heard on 16.4.2001. 4. Mr. R. Karuppan, the 2nd respondent, in his counter, submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable since, the petitioner, who is not having a good background cannot seek any direction from this Court. It is submitted that the Registry of this Court ought not to have even numbered the writ petition. An Association operating on the basis of the will of its members, has its own mechanisms” to deal with the situation. It is submitted that the credentials of the petitioner were worse than a meddlesom e interloper and a busy body. Action was to have been taken against the petitioner for having disturbed the General Body Meeting on 31.8.2000 and assaulting the second respondent and tearing his gown to pieces in a drunken state but the same was dropped with a view to give him a chance. The petitioner is also accused of circulating an undated anonymous letter actuated by mala fide intentions. It is also alleged that the petitioner was in the habit of floating unregistered Associations. It is also submitted that he was facing the charge at the Bar Council for having misappropriated the money sent to his client one Nithyavani by misrepresenting and opening a bank account and forging the signature of the client. Though the petitioner had challenged the activities of the Advocates Association, he had participated in the General Body meeting on 25.9.2000, 27.9.2000, 17.11.2000 and 4.1.2001 by signing in the minutes book. It is submitted that it was unnecessary to deny the false and untenable allegations. The representation of Mr. P.K. Rajagopal as Secretary was without authority. Though the petitioner had challenged the activities of the Advocates Association, he had participated in the General Body meeting on 25.9.2000, 27.9.2000, 17.11.2000 and 4.1.2001 by signing in the minutes book. It is submitted that it was unnecessary to deny the false and untenable allegations. The representation of Mr. P.K. Rajagopal as Secretary was without authority. Every action of the Association was democratic and all resolutions have been carried out. 5. The writ petitioner appearing as party in person submitted that the 2nd respondent is using the Association for his personal gain, fame, and position. It is further submitted that the 2nd respondent is in the habit of over-reaching the court by his behaviour. The allegation that the writ petitioner has not come to Court with clean hands is denied. The second respondent without convening Executive Council meeting has no power to convene the General Body meeting. Narrating his credentials and philanthropic activities, he submitted that the second respondent was financially weak before his election as President but now he had become a member of the Cosmopolitan Club. The circulation of newsletter ‘Flaws’ by the second respondent is an offence as it was not registered and it always contained unparliamentary words defaming others. The anonymous letter was circulated by an office bearer of the Association to whom the letter was addressed. The allegation of complaint by Nithyavani for forging her signature and that a complaint had been filed before the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu is false. Denying that he ever signed to approve any resolution passed by Mr. R. Katuppan, it is stated that he participated in those meetings only to protest the issue. It is alleged that the second respondent has committed an offence of perjury by submitting a document filed at page 59 of his typed set. It is alleged that he used to call Judges in singular. 6. The second respondent has filed the Rules and Regulations of the Association and three Registers and also a draft of proposed bye-laws to replace the existing bye-laws on 7.4.2001. As per the Rules and Regulations the Association shall consist of three classes of members, resident members, non-resident members and honorary members. Every application for membership in the Association (except honorary membership) shall be made in an authorised form and signed by the applicant and recommended by two members. The subscription fee is Rs. As per the Rules and Regulations the Association shall consist of three classes of members, resident members, non-resident members and honorary members. Every application for membership in the Association (except honorary membership) shall be made in an authorised form and signed by the applicant and recommended by two members. The subscription fee is Rs. 3.00 per annum for junior members and Rs. 4.00 per annum for seniors. A general body meeting shall be held before the end of March every year. The President shall preside over all the meetings and the quorum shall be 25. The proceedings of every meeting shall be recorded in a book to be kept for the purpose by the Secretaries and signed by the Chairman of the meeting. The management of the Association shall vest in a Council consisting of the President, two Secretaries, one Librarian and 11 ordinary members of the Association, of whom 4 at least shall be advocates of not less than 10 years’ standing. They will be elected at the Annual General Meeting. The President, Librarian and the Council shall hold office for a period of one year and the Secretaries shall normally hold office for two years. The election shall be by ballot. Detailed procedure has been provided for election in the bye-laws. The Councils powers include purchase of books for the Association Library, printing and publishing books, to pass bye-laws not inconsistent with the rules of the Association, etc. The Council shall meet once in a month but special meetings of the Council may be convened by the President or the Secretaries on the written requisition of not less than three members of the Council for any specified purpose. The quorum for all meetings shall be five. Resolutions of the Council shall be recorded which will be confirmed at the next meeting of the Council. Procedure for affiliation is also detailed. There shall be one or more funds. The Secretaries shall have power to meet all expenses. There shall be three accounts, general account, special account and the provident fund account. The accounts shall be audited every year and the Auditors report shall be placed before the Association. Bye-laws made by the Council shall be notified on the notice board of the Association and shall be placed at the next general body meeting of the Association. There shall be three accounts, general account, special account and the provident fund account. The accounts shall be audited every year and the Auditors report shall be placed before the Association. Bye-laws made by the Council shall be notified on the notice board of the Association and shall be placed at the next general body meeting of the Association. The Association may either at the Annual General Meeting or at any extra-ordinary meeting add to, alter or repeal any of the rules of the Association or the Bye-Laws made by the Council. 7. In the proposed bye-laws, procedure for admission is mentioned. Rates of subscription are also mentioned. Removal from membership and locker rents, obligation of members using the library, objects of the Association etc. are also mentioned. The Secretary of the Association shall be the person authorised to sue and be sued on behalf of the Association. General Body meeting of the Association shall be held before the end of the month of March every year and a notice of minimum 21 clear days shall be given by the Secretaries for the convening and conduct of the meeting of the General Body. The Executive Committee may on its own motion or at request of not less than 250 members convene an extraordinary general body meeting. The quorum shall be 100 members. Proceedings of all the meetings of the Executive Committee and the General Body shall be recorded in a book to be kept for the purpose by the Secretaries and signed by the President. The President shall consult the Secretaries before convening an extraordinary general meeting or any other special meeting. If difference of opinion arises, then it shall be referred to the Executive Committee. The Secretaries shall be in charge of the administrative functions of the association and they shall open the necessary bank account and operate the same jointly. Secretaries are the sole authorities for the management of the Association both in administration and financial aspects. Election Rules are also mentioned. 8. Mr. R. Karuppan, the second respondent has reiterated what is stated in his counter. He submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable, since the writ petitioner has not come with clean hands. He further submitted that he has conducted meetings in a democratic manner and has projected the conscience of the members of the Bar. 8. Mr. R. Karuppan, the second respondent has reiterated what is stated in his counter. He submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable, since the writ petitioner has not come with clean hands. He further submitted that he has conducted meetings in a democratic manner and has projected the conscience of the members of the Bar. He also submitted that after his assuming the office as President, the Association has improved. He prayed that the writ petition has to be dismissed. 9. We have heard the parties on both sides and perused the respective pleadings, counter and reply to counter. So far as the maintainability of the writ petition is concerned, generally, no writ lies against a society. The Madras High Court Advocates Association is a society, which has been permitted by the High Court to function within the campus of the High Court. A reference can be made to the decision in Praga Tools Corporation v. C.A. Immauel ( AIR 1969 S.C. 1306 ), wherein it was held that a Mandamus can issue, for instance, to an official of a Society to compel him to carry out the terms of the Statute under or by which the society is constituted or governed, and also to companies or corporations to carry out duties placed on them by statutes authorising their undertakings. A mandamus would also lie against a company constituted by a Statute for the purpose of fulfilling public responsibilities. Thereafter, a Division Bench of this Court in Madras Labour Union rep. by its President v. Binny Ltd (1995 I CTC 73), after referring to the entire case law and text books on Administrative Law has set out several proposition, viz. a writ will issue against a private body to protect the fundamental rights, in extraordinary circumstances if the monstrosity of the situation warrants it, and against a private body, if there is no equally convenient remedy and if there is public duty. A Full Bench of this Court in M. Thanikachalam & others v. Mathuranthagam Agricultural Producers Co-op. a writ will issue against a private body to protect the fundamental rights, in extraordinary circumstances if the monstrosity of the situation warrants it, and against a private body, if there is no equally convenient remedy and if there is public duty. A Full Bench of this Court in M. Thanikachalam & others v. Mathuranthagam Agricultural Producers Co-op. Marketing Society (2000 IV CTC 556), after referring to the entire case law on the subject held, ‘what is necessary to be seen is, if the order passed is without jurisdiction, or before passing any order, it is required to hear the affected party, as per the statute, but not followed, meaning thereby, if the principles of natural justice are not followed, or if there is any flagrant violation of law, or if situations warrant, due to the prevailing of a monstrous situation, a writ petition can he’. So, as the facts culled out, the Association which has been established to uphold the noble tradition of the legal profession, is being misused as has been set out earlier. The argument of Mr. R. Karuppan that the petitioner does not command good reputation and is facing some complaints in the Bar Council is not sufficient to throw out the writ petition when he is a practising lawyer of this Court as Mr. R. Karuppan himself. Even assuming that he has no locus standi, what is to be seen is that once the matter has come to the notice of the Court and the issue involved is shocking and touching the conscience of the Court, the Court can issue direction in an appropriate case against an interloper or busy body also. But at the same time, it has to be seen that the PIL should not be used for ones personal gain or publicity or political motivation. 10. In the administration of justice, the Bar plays a vital role. Without the cooperation of the Bar, the Bench cannot function smoothly and effectively. A look at the records available before us, shows that the Members of the Association are fighting with each other and that a cold war persists between a group of members and the group of the president. The Advocates who are raising their voice for maintaining the rule of law, are being deprived of their right to vindicate their grievance. A look at the records available before us, shows that the Members of the Association are fighting with each other and that a cold war persists between a group of members and the group of the president. The Advocates who are raising their voice for maintaining the rule of law, are being deprived of their right to vindicate their grievance. Except sating that such a state of things is an unfortunate one, we desist ourselves from saying anything more. 11. We have taken pains to go through the Minutes passed by the Association. The controversy regarding age issue of an individual or any person can be raised by his employer or by any competent person, as the case may be, by instituting a suit. The Association cannot take up cudgels and agitate the issue against an individual who has no concern with the said Association. More so, the issue raised had already attained finality, as per the decision of His Excellency the President of India long ago. So, a settled matter cannot be allowed to be raised again by merely saying that it is unsettled. That apart, for raising the same issue and for insisting further, one advocate was punished in a contempt proceedings by the Apex Court, vide order dated 15.12.2000. 12. Now, the question to be seen is whether such issue was raised by the Association by passing a valid resolution or by the President Mr. R. Karuppan himself. It is no doubt true, the Association is free to conduct its affairs within the ambit and the powers conferred upon it, by the Rules and Regulations. The primary duty of the Association is to discharge its functions as per the aims and objects, to upkeep the dignity, the etiquette of the Members and to maintain the nobility of the profession as could be. As stated earlier, this Court will not go into the rival allegations and the counter allegations throwing slush on one another. But, this Court will not allow itself to sit as a silent spectator when some of the Members of the Association, in the garb of passing or non-passing of such alleged resolution at the behest of the President, started roaming around the Court corridors, and the Court Halls shouting slogans and making all sorts of disturbance to the administration of justice. It is also seen that the halls are given to the Association free of rent and the Chambers at a very nominal rent and electricity charges at subsidised rate. Moresoever, when the president of the Association is said to be behaving in an autocratic manner, with the assistance of some of the Members and Resolutions are alleged to have been passed by pasting of typewritten matters, majority of them typed in the personal letter pad of the President Mr. R. Karuppan himself, and when there is no convincing proof viz., issuance of notice calling for executive meetings and general body meetings, as also Extraordinary General Body meetings, approval of the members to the effect that such resolutions were passed after due deliberations and considerations, and recorded minutes were confirmed in the next meeting, we are of the firm view, that such resolutions were passed at the behest of the President only showing the personal animosity and interest and this Court cannot sit idle anymore and it has to necessarily interfere with such activities. 13. On a cursory perusal of the Bye-laws and Rules and the Regulations of the Association, we are of the view that what is to be seen is whether the act of the President, Mr. R. Karuppan is within the ambit and the power vested in him. As per the Bye-law, the President has to preside over the meeting. The Secretary is over all in charge. The President has to consult the Secretary before convening the General Body meeting. The Executive Council Meeting shall be held once a month. Nothing was discussed in the nine meetings held between 8.6.2000 and 20.3.2001 about convening the extraordinary general body meeting as seen from the Register. Apparently, no meeting was convened as per the procedure nor the Executive taken into confidence before taking up the issue in the General Body meeting. The proceedings of the meetings shall be recorded in a book kept by the Secretary and signed by the President. Notice calling for the meeting should be issued by the Secretary. The Secretaries have to open bank account jointly. It is also not seen whether the newly elected office bearers have passed any resolution authorising to operate bank account. No material has been placed to show authorisation for submitting to the bank or opening the bank account. The President Mr. Notice calling for the meeting should be issued by the Secretary. The Secretaries have to open bank account jointly. It is also not seen whether the newly elected office bearers have passed any resolution authorising to operate bank account. No material has been placed to show authorisation for submitting to the bank or opening the bank account. The President Mr. R. Karuppan also has not been able to satisfy us whether the memorandum of Association, receipt and expenses account, balance sheet and other reports or other formalities like filing of information to the Register, after the coming into force of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, have been followed or not and the Association, which is registered one, is bound to comply with such requirements as per the Rules and Regulations and under the provisions of the Act. The President has also dissolved the Council and holding of the election has been declared. Be that as it may, we have to see whether the Resolutions so passed by the Association are as per the Rules and Regulations and valid in law or not. 14. Three registers were filed relating to 2 General Body Meetings, 32 Extraordinary General Meetings and 9 Executive Council Meetings. A look at the registers produced before us reveals that there were about 30 Extraordinary General Body meeting held between 14.7.2000 and 14.3.2001 and 2 more extraordinary general meetings on 19.3.2001 and 27.3.2001. The register relating to executive council meeting reveals that after 15.9.2000, there was no periodical monthly meetings till 5.1.2000. During that period, 20 extraordinary general meeting have been convened which shows that the Council was not taken into confidence about the extraordinary meetings. This reveals that the President never called Executive Council Meeting and by ignoring the Executive Council, i.e. the Governing Body, conducted extraordinary meetings, which can only be called either by the executive council on its own motion or at the request of members. In our view, none of the above meetings had been held as per the Rules and Regulations of the Association. It will be apt to put the following five meetings, viz., dated 1 7th November, 23rd November, 30th November, 1st December and 11th December, 2000 to litmus test. In the meeting held on 17.11.2000, it is stated, “You are expected to attend and give your views and advice”. Below, ‘Members Present’, about 53 Members have signed. It will be apt to put the following five meetings, viz., dated 1 7th November, 23rd November, 30th November, 1st December and 11th December, 2000 to litmus test. In the meeting held on 17.11.2000, it is stated, “You are expected to attend and give your views and advice”. Below, ‘Members Present’, about 53 Members have signed. No resolution is found. In the ‘Proceedings’ of the Meeting dated 23.11.2000 also, 68 members have merely signed. Between page Nos. 38 and 39, a Xerox copy of typed matter in the personal letter pad of the President, in the nature of a letter, is pasted. In the ‘Proceedings’ dated 30.11.2000 also about 68 members signed below, ‘Members Present’. No resolution is recorded. We are in the dark as to what affairs were conducted. In the ‘Proceedings’ dated 1.12.2000, in the first page itself, at page 43 of the book a Xeorx copy typed in the personal pad of the President, with his signature which could hardly be seen, is pasted. Here also, below the words, ‘Members Present’ about 105 members have signed. What all typed has been written in ink below that under the caption 1-12-2000. G.B.M. Resolution. Below that there is no signature. In the proceedings dated .12.2000’ once again it could be seen that a xerox copy of typed matter in the personal letter pad of President is affixed. In all the proceedings, mentioned above, no notice calling for the members was issued by the Secretary. It is also not seen whether any deliberations or considerations had been made. Merely signing below ‘Members Present’ will not complete a meeting and that apart, number of lines are kept blank and even the President has not signed at the end to close the proceedings. First of all, a proper notice should have been issued before convening a general body meeting or an extraordinary general body meeting. Deliberations and discussions on a particular issue should have been detailed out. Every aspect will have two ideas. The contrary views so expressed should have found a place. Finally, according to the voting in majority, it should have been minuted as ‘Minutes of the Meeting’ giving the votes in favour and against, with every page signed neatly and clearly, by the President. Every aspect will have two ideas. The contrary views so expressed should have found a place. Finally, according to the voting in majority, it should have been minuted as ‘Minutes of the Meeting’ giving the votes in favour and against, with every page signed neatly and clearly, by the President. 9 executive council meetings were held between 8.6.2000 and 20.3.2001 and in none of the meetings, the issue of the “Extraordinary General Body Meeting was discussed. The President has not consulted the Secretaries for convening the extraordinary meeting or the general body meeting and executive members were not taken into con fidence. The President has ignored the wishes of the members of the Executive Council i.e. the Governing Body. Moreover, what all had been passed in the earlier meeting should have been confirmed in the next meeting. This was also not done. No such procedure had been followed/shown. 15. Further, this Court in its order dated 23.2.2001 made it clear that the President shall do things only as per the procedure prescribed under the Rules and bye-laws of the Association. But, even after that, he had held meetings on 5.3.2001, 14.3.2001 and 19.3.2001 for which neither notices were issued for the meeting, nor minutes were recorded as per the required procedure. Further, the decision of earlier meetings also were not approved in the next meeting. Therefore, we are of the opinion that by merely pasting the contents, typed in the personal letter pad of Mr. R. Karuppan, the President, the alleged resolutions cannot be said to have been passed in consonance with the wishes of the members of the Council i.e. Governing Body or the procedures prescribed in the rules and regulations, of the Association and pertaining to the conduct of meetings. As clearly revealed from a perusal of the Minutes of the Meetings, we are of the firm view that the President/2nd respondent had used his position, and claimed to have passed resolutions, using his authoritative attitude, with the assistance of some of the Members of his choice, throwing to wind, all the procedures prescribed in the Rules and Regulations of the Association. Moreover, no Council meeting was held nor were the resolutions of the meetings approved subsequently. The resolutions passed in the manner as stated will have no consequence. Moreover, no Council meeting was held nor were the resolutions of the meetings approved subsequently. The resolutions passed in the manner as stated will have no consequence. Further, ignoring the executive and the members of the Council, the general body meeting or extraordinary general meeting cannot be held unless there is a request by the members and if any request is made, the other alleged 6,000 members should be informed. In view of the above, it is clear that the President is not performing his functions in consonance with the Council. The proceedings clearly show that the second respondent has made it impossible for the first respondent to function freely in discharging the purpose but has created a monstrous situation. 16. Though the proposed bye-laws are not approved in the general body meeting, but the fact remains that as per the existing bye-laws or the proposed bye-laws, the resolutions of the Council shall be recorded which would be confirmed in the next meeting. The same has not been followed in any of the so-called meetings wherein the alleged resolutions as stated in the letter pads of the President, have been passed. 17. As stated already, in the Meetings so pointed out earlier, the Members present simply put their signatures. At the most, it can be used only for the purpose of ‘attendance register’. Nobody was afforded an opportunity to raise even his little finger in favour or against the passing of the resolution. At the same, nobody also could be considered as if he affixed his seal of approval. Thus, the proceedings clearly show that the second respondent is acting to further his personal interest and his actions are not in the interest of the first respondent. Under the circumstances, with deep concern, having no other option we hold that the Meetings conducted by the Madras High Court Advocates Association are ‘no meeting’ of the members of the Executive Council or the General Body by taking into confidence the members or following the procedure and they are accordingly held as null and void and the argument of Mr. R. Karuppan is not acceptable. R. Karuppan is not acceptable. As discussed, on account of such drastic attitude coupled with au thoritative, and autocratic manner of functioning, we have no hesitation in entertaining this writ petition and direct the second respondent to act in a befitting manner after consulting the members of the executive and discharge his function collectively by elected body as per the Rules and Regulations and Bye-laws of the Association. In future, the first respondent shall not be used to further the personal interest of any individual member in the garb of the Association. Otherwise, this Court will not hesitate to take action and supersede the Association by appointing an adhoc committee to discharge its function and to hold fresh elections, which are also due to be held at the end of this month. In view of this, notice to and hearing the other respondents are not necessary and it is not necessary to issue notice in the impleading petition also. We have perused whatever registers were produced before us and no other document was produced or shown to us by the second respondent. 18. Before parting with the case, we are constrained to take judicial notice of certain activities of the Members, who are officers of the Court, which took place within the precincts of this prestigious Chartered High Court, wherein some of them shouted slogans calling for boycott of courts, prevented advocates from entering into Court Halls and even shut the doors of certain Administrative Sections of this Court. It caused a great panic in the minds of the litigant public, as well as the staff, who ran for shelter hither and thither. Apart from the above, the other activity which caused great concern is the vituperative attack and slogan shouting against persons holding high judicial office. Though Mr. R. Karuppan, the second respondent, has repeatedly stated that he has high regard to the Court and Judges, and showing respect to this Court is not disputed, still we are pained to state that such activities are not consistent with the high traditions and standards of the legal profession and they would only undermine the dignity of legal fraternity. In our considered view, this Court should not remain a mute spectator, tolerating such activities, as nobody is above law. In our considered view, this Court should not remain a mute spectator, tolerating such activities, as nobody is above law. Keeping it in mind, we direct that in the event of such activities occurring in future, this Court would step in to protect and preserve the institution and take severe and stern action against all the erring persons. The premises of the Advocates Association had been given sacrificing the interest of High Court Staff depriving them of adequate accommodation facilities, and placing them in congested places. Morover, the Government/Registry also gives other facilities at subsidised rates. In such a situation, the premises of the Advocates Association cannot be used to subvert judicial process or the institutional credibility. The members of the Association should think and ponder over the glorious past and emulate their worthy predecessors, and set a model for younger generation, instead of indulging in practices which are not consistent with the dignity of the profession. 19. We hope the above observations, would be taken in the proper spirit by all the members of the Bar and other Associations as well and these observations are made only to subserve the institutional credibility for the posterity, which will go a long way in the effective dispensation of justice. 20. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of and writ miscellaneous petitions are disposed of accordingly.