ORDER 1. Heard. 2. Petitioner being aggrieved of the notification dated 2.6.2007 has preferred this petition on the ground that the said order has been passed without adhering to the principles of natural justice, equity and good conscientious. The petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered by the apex Court In Re : An Advocate [ AIR 1989 SC 245 ] and in the case of Olga Tells and others v. Bombay Municipal Corporation and others [ AIR 1986 SC 180 ] and submits that his source of earning and livelihood has been taken away in most arbitrary manner. Heard the petitioner at length. 3. It is seen from the documents filed by the petitioner that a show cause notice to the petitioner was issued by the State Bar Council of M.P. on 17.11.2006, whereby, the petitioner was called upon to show as to why disciplinary action be not taken against him for violation of Rules/norms set by the State Bar Council of India and defiance whereof the petitioner was found displaying the sign boards on electric pole mentioning his address, telephone number, registration number of Supreme Court, High Court etc. On receiving the aforesaid notice, the petitioner submitted his reply and the said reply was considered by the State Bar Council of M.P. which by its resolution No.511/06 dated 9.12.2006 referred the matter to the disciplinary Committee Gwalior for holding an enquiry in accordance with law. Thereafter, a registered notice was issued on the petitioner on 3.1.2007 and an order was passed on 29.4.2007. The petitioner for the reasons best known to him has not filed the order dated 29.4.2007. 4. Be that as it may, a notification on 2.6.2007 on the basis of order dated 29.4.2007 was issued by the State Bar Council of M.P., whereby, the licence of the petitioner was suspended for a period of six months with an imposition of fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in case the fine is not deposited by one month, a further suspension of six months was notified. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid notification. 5. 5,000/- and in case the fine is not deposited by one month, a further suspension of six months was notified. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid notification. 5. The order impugned is in exercise of power under section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961 which empowers the State Bar Council to take such action either of its own motion or on application and may make orders either to dismiss the complaint, reprimand the Advocate, suspend the Advocate from practice for some period, as it may be or to remove the Advocate from the State Roll of Advocates and an appeal is provided under section 37 of the Act 1961 which stipulates; 37. Appeal to the Bar Council of India , -- (1) Any person aggrieved by an order of the disciplinary committee of a State Bar Council made [under section 35] [or the Advocate General of the State] may, within sixty days of the date of the communication of the order to him, prefer an appeal to the Bar Council of India. (2) Every such appeal shall be heard by the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India which may pass such order [including an order varying the punishment awarded by the disciplinary committee of the State Bar Council] thereon as it deems fit: Provided that no order of the disciplinary committee of the State Bar Council shall be varied by the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India so as to prejudicially affect the person aggrieved without giving him reasonable opportunity of being heard. 6. In the case at hand admittedly the petitioner has not filed any appeal as is provided under section 37 of the Advocates Act, 1961 and has rushed to this Court under the garb that his fundamental rights are being violated. 7. Without entering into the merits of the controversy raised by the petitioner. The present petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy provided under section 37 of the Advocates Act, 1961. The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty.