ORDER , 1. These appeals have been preferred by two lawyers practising in the High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow. On 15-7-1994, when two Judges ofthe Allahabad High Court were holding court proceedings at Lucknow, it is alleged that a group of lawyers came to the Court raising slogans and directed the Court to stop functioning. Out of them, five lawyers allegedly, including the present appellants, entered the dais and one of them tried to manhandle the Judges sitting on the dais and they also uttered certain words which were per se contempt. The Judges of the Allahabad High Court took contempt proceedings against the five lawyers cluding the present appellants. All the five lawyers were convicted under the Contempt of Courts Act and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one month and a fine of rupees one thousand, in default to further undergo sentence for a period of two weeks. The present appellants filed separate habeas corpus petitions alleging that they had not in fact been involved in the incident and one of the appellants contended that he had not gone to the court that day as a strike of lawyers was going on and the other appellant contended that he was ill on that day and he had also not gone to the court premises on that day and their conviction for contempt was on a mistaken identity. Habeas corpus petitions filed by these two appellants were placed before the same Judges who dealt with the contempt matter and the habeas corpus petitions were treated as review petitions as the two contemnors were not arrested by the police by that time and they were not in custody. The Court held that there was no mistaken identity and the petitions were dismissed. The final order passed in the contempt proceedings was challenged before this Court, and by the judgment of this Court in L.P. Misra (Dr.) v. State of U.P.1 the Court remanded the case to the Allahabad High Court as the procedure prescribed under Chapter 35-E of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 for the purpose of dealing with contempt of court proceedings was not followed, and the order passed by the High Court in the contempt proceedings was set aside and the matter was remanded to the principal seat of the Allahabad High Court at Allahabad to hear and dispose of the contempt proceedings. 2. Subsequent to the remand order passed by this Court the matter was dealt with by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court. After the remand the Division Bench of the High Court took the view that the provision of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Rule 5 of Chapter 35-E of the Allahabad High Court Rules would apply and the Court would not issue notice if more than a year had elapsed from the alleged a act of contempt of court and the contemnors did not have the opportunity to avail of Section 14 of the Act. We may state that our present order need not be taken as affirmation of the view taken by the High Court as regards Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act as nobody has challenged the view taken by the High Court. We are not expressing any view on the matter. 3. The counsel for the present appellants contended that from the very initial stage these two appellants had disputed the identity and had contended that they had not been present in the Court when the unruly incident happened in the Court and it is prayed that the Bar Council may be permitted to consider this question independently of the views expressed by the Division Bench in the impugned order. We have heard the matter in detail and as the Court has now directed the Bar Council to consider the question and totake appropriate action in the matter, the Bar Council may deal with the matter in accordance with the direction contained in the impugned judgment. However, we make it clear that the present appellants would be at liberty to raise the question of mistaken identity before the Bar Council and that question shall be considered independently of the views expressed by the Division Bench in the impugned judgment. 4. With the above observations, we dispose of all the appeals.