ORDER 1. HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES. 2. THE STATE BAR COUNCIL OF UTTAR PRADESH, BY ITS ORDER DATED 15-9-2001, SUSPENDED THE LICENCE OF THE APPELLANT FOR PRACTISING AS ADVOCATE FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS AND DIRECTED TO FILE A FIRST INFORMATION REPORT AGAINST THE APPELLANT. AGAINST THE SAID ORDER, THE APPELLANT FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA UNDER SECTION 37 OF THE ADVOCATES ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT "THE ACT"). THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA HAS ENHANCED THE PUNISHMENT AND DIRECTED THAT THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE ROLL OF ADVOCATES OF THE UTTAR PRADESH BAR COUNCIL. LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA HAD ENHANCED THE PUNISHMENT WITHOUT AFFORDING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT OF BEING HEARD AS REQUIRED UNDER THE PROVISO TO SECTION 37(2) OF THE ACT. UNDISPUTEDLY, NO SUCH OPPORTUNITY WAS AFFORDED TO THE APPELLANT BEFORE ENHANCING THE PUNISHMENT BY THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA. THIS BEING THE POSITION, WE ARE OF C THE VIEW THAT ON THIS GROUND ALONE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA IS FIT TO BE SET ASIDE. 3. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED, THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA IS SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER IS REMANDED TO IT TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE APPELLANT AS REQUIRED UNDER THE PROVISO TO SECTION 37(2) OF THE ACT. 4. NO COSTS.