Shri Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the provision about conduct of Advocate is taken care of in Chapter V of Advocates Act, 1961 (for short “Act”). Sec. 35 prescribes the procedure pursuant to which an Advocate can be punished for misconduct. By placing heavy reliance on Sec.35 of the said Act, it is urged that if Bar Council has any reason to believe that any Advocate on its role is guilty of professional or other misconduct, it is required to refer the matter for disposal to the disciplinary committee. It is only the disciplinary committee which can take a decision after putting the Advocate concerned to notice. In the instant case, it is urged that; (i) the decision was never taken by the Disciplinary Committee, (ii) the decision making process is faulty because no show cause notice was served on the present petitioner, (iii) sub-section (2) and (3) of Sec.35 have not been followed. Thus, the suspension order is null and void and passed by incompetent authority and without following the “due process”. Learned counsel for Bar Council submits that the conduct of petitioner was very serious and, therefore, in order to maintain order in the activities of advocates, a decision was taken to place the petitioner under suspension. The petitioner has an efficacious, alternative remedy u/S.37 of the said Act to prefer an appeal. In view of this remedy available, this petition may not be entertained. Counsel for respondent No.2 also placed reliance on Sec.6 of the Advocates Act to contend that the provision is wide enough pursuant to which petitioner could have been placed under suspension. Thus, no fault can be found in the order of suspension. Shri Kamal Gupta, for respondent No.4 appeared in person and submits that during Covid 19 pandemic the Adhoc Committee of District Bar Association has left no stone unturned to see that Covid 19 protocol and restrictions are followed. The Advocates working under the leadership of Adhoc Committee have taken pains to take care of all Covid 19 restrictions so that system can work smoothly. Petitioner created serious ruckus during that period and this conduct of petitioner was in due course reported to the Bar Council. Action was taken by respondent No.4 also against the petitioner. In view of this conduct of petitioner, no interference may be made and petitioner may be relegated to avail the remedy of appeal u/s.37 of the Act.