(S.A. Bobde, J.)

1. Writ petition No.3107 of 1994 is filed by a practicing Advocate Mr. Sudame, enrolled on the roll of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Writ petition No.5654 of 2007 is preferred by an education society, which runs a college. By these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged Section 64 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 (For Short the “Act”) under which legal practitioners are not entitled to appear before the College Tribunal. The education society has challenged the order of the University and College Tribunal, Nagpur refusing permission to an Advocate to appear before it in view of Section 64 of the Act. Both the petitioners have challenged Section 64 of the Act as being repugnant by Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 as well as Section 14 of the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926.

2. Section 64 of the Act bars appearance of legal practitioners before the College Tribunal constituted under the Act. Section 64 reads as follows:

“64. Legal practitioners excluded from appearance:

Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, a legal practitioner shall not be entitled to appear on behalf of any party in any proceedings before the tribunal.”

The University and College Tribunal constituted under Section 58 of the Act has wide powers. In any appeal brought before the University and College Tribunal by any employee, whether a teacher or other employee, who is dismissed or removed or whose services are otherwise terminated or who is reduced in rank by the university or management, the University and College Tribunal has wide powers to decide all the questions of fact or law which arise therein. It is not disputed that the University and College Tribunal has power to take evidence on oath having been vested with the same powers as are vested in an appellate court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The University and College Tribunal is presided over by a person, who is or has been a Judge of High Court or is qualified to be appointed as a Judge of High Court from amongst a panel of three persons recommended by the Chief Justice of High Court of Judicature at Bombay.

3. In Writ petition No.5654 of 2007, the University and College Tribunal has exercised its power under Section 64 of the Act and passed the impugned order dated 21.11.2007 thereby withdrawing permission granted earlier to the legal practitioners to appear before it and directing the parties to make their own arrangements for defending their case. The tribunal has also made the order applicable to the other cases pending before it.

4. The main contention of Mr. Sudame, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that Section 64 of the Act, which is enacted by the State Legislature, is repugnant to the provisions of Section 30 of the Advocates Act. According to the learned counsel, Section 64 of the Act prohibits legal practitioners including Advocates from appearing before the University and College Tribunal, which is repugnant to Section 30 of the Advocates Act, which empowers and confers right on Advocates to practise as of right, inter alia before any tribunal or person legally authorised to take evidence. According to the learned Counsel, since the University and College Tribunal is one such tribunal, a right conferred by Parliamentary law cannot be refused by taking recourse to the State law which is thereby repugnant to the Advocates Act.

5. The contention is that Section 30 of the Advocates Act, which confers on Advocates a right to practice in all courts and tribunals, before any person authorised to take evidence, is enacted by Parliament in exercise of its legislative powers under entry 77 and 78 of List I the Union List and entry 26 of list III the Concurrent List. This provision, thus, occupies legislative field relating to the right to practice of Advocates and empowers them inter alia to practice before all tribunals including the University and College Tribunal, constituted under th