N. Sathish Kumar, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed to quash the impugned order dated 27.11.2017 in T.N.E.C.R.No.19 of 2017 of the second respondent.

2. Mr.S.R.Raghunathan, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the first respondent and Mr.Haja Mohideen Kisthi accepts notice on behalf of the second respondent. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is as follows :

The writ petitioner appeared for the XII Standard examination in the month of March, 1995 and passed all subjects, except Mathematics. However, she has passed Mathematics in the month of March 2014. In the meantime, she had joined B.A. Degree by way of correspondence in the Madras University and completed B.A. Degree in May 2005 and completed her LLB in 2014 in Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupathi. Later she completed bar council examination and enrolled as an advocate on 16.08.2014 and her enrollment number is 1307/14 and was practicing as an advocate.

4. When the matter stood thus, one Mrs.Rani Pandian, who is an elder sister of the petitioner's husband, gave a complaint to the second respondent stating that the petitioner has failed in Mathematics in XII Standard examination and requested the bar council to cancel the enrollment of the petitioner as per rules.

5. In pursuant to the above complaint, the second respondent issued a show cause notice on 12.04.2017 in R.O.C.No.667 of 2017 calling for an explanation for non compliance of the Rule 5 of Legal Education Rules 2008. The petitioner had submitted her explanation and thereafter, she was called upon for an enquiry. However, the second respondent, without considering any of the contentions of the petitioner, issued an interim prohibitory order, prohibiting the petitioner from practicing in any court of law including Judicial or Quasi Judicial forum pending disposal of the reference alleging that the Special Committee has forwarded the recommendations for removal of the petitioner's name from the roll of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry under section 26(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961 to the Bar Council of India and passed the impugned order on 27.11.2017 in T.E.R.C.R.No.19 of 2017. Hence, this Writ petition.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the impugned Order, only a recommendation has been made to the Bar Council of India for removal of the name of the petitioner from the roll of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry under section 26(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961 and as the petitioner obtained a law degree and enrolled with the bar Council of Tamilnadu and practicing in the Court of law, the interim prohibitory order passed by the second respondent is not as per law and the second respondent has no power to pass such a prohibitory order and only the Bar Council of India alone has power to remove an advocate from its roles. Therefore, submitted that the order passed by the second respondent is liable to be quashed and the interim order has to be stayed.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

8. The main contention of the writ petitioner is that the second respondent has no power to pass the interim prohibitory order. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was enrolled as an advocate before the second respondent on 16.08.2014 under enrollment No.1307 of 2014. She was enrolled as an advocate as per the law decree provisional certificate. An explanation was sought by the second respondent in ROC No.667 of 2017 dated 12.04.2017 to explain the fact that she has competed her XII Standard Examination after completion of her law degree and also to show cause as to why the petitioner should not be removed from the enrollment since the petitioner as not complied with the Legal Education Rules 2008 [10+2+3] legally framed by the Bar Council of India. In pursuant to the above communication, the petitioner submitted an