ORDER :

R. MAHADEVAN, J.

We have heard the petitioner as party-in-person and the learned counsel for the first respondent as well as the learned counsel for the third respondent and perused the materials placed.

2. The petitioner is an advocate practicing in the Courts and Tribunals at Chennai, including the second respondent/Tribunal. He is also a member of the Institute of Company Secretaries of India. He has come forward with this Public Interest Litigation for a writ of declaration to declare the Order dated 14.11.2017 passed by the second respondent, insofar as it relates to imposition of dress code for advocates for appearance before the Tribunal. For ready reference, the order dated 14.11.2017, which is impugned in this writ petition, is extracted below:

"In addition to the dress code already approved vide order dated 02.08.2016, wearing of gown would be necessary w.e.f. 20th November 2017 in all the benches of NCLT for Hon'ble President, Members and Advocates.

2. The dress code for other Authorised Representatives and parties in person shall remain same as issued vide Order dated 02.08.2016."

3.(i) According to the petitioner, the National Company Law Tribunal (“the Tribunal or NCLT”) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT or the Appellate Tribunal”) were constituted under the Companies Act, 2013 and the Tribunal started functioning from 01.06.2016. Hitherto, Company Law Tribunal (CLB) was in existence from 1991 to 2016 until the constitution of the Tribunal on 01.06.2016. Upon constitution, the Tribunal exercises similar powers as that of the CLB in addition to the powers as conferred under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). It is further stated by the petitioner that the Central Government constituted the Tribunal with an objective to dispose of cases relating to company matters expeditiously and to replace the erstwhile CLB and Board for Industrial and Financial Resconstruction (BIFR) besides the powers that were exercised by this Court under the Company Law jurisdiction. Thus, after the constitution of the Tribunal, CLB was dissolved and all the matters pending before the CLB were transferred to the Tribunal. Consequently, the judicial members from legal profession and technical members from other professions like Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries etc. have been appointed and hence, the Tribunal is a quasi judicial authority administered by judicial and technical members. Above all, as per Section 427 of the Companies Act, 2013, the President, Members, Officers and other employees of the Tribunal shall be deemed to be public servants within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. Similarly, the Chairperson, Members, Officers and other employees of the Appellate Tribunal are also deemed to be public servants.

(ii) The petitioner as party-in-person further stated that the constitution of the Tribunal / Appellate Tribunal was challenged before this Court in WP No. 2198 of 2003 (Madras Bar Association v. Union of India, (2004) 59 CLA 417) and it went upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in Union of India v. R. Gandhi, President, Madras Bar Association [(2010) 96 CLA 222 (SC)], the Hon'ble Supreme Court uphold the decision of the Madras High Court that the creation of National Company Law Tribunal and National Company Law Appellate Tribunal and vesting in them, the powers and jurisdiction exercised by the High Court in regard to company, law matters, are not unconstitutional and that, declared that Parts IB and IC of the Companies Act as presently structured, are unconstitutional, but the same may be made operational by making suitable amendments.

(iii) While that being so, the second respondent passed the impugned order dated 14.11.2017 which is in direct conflict with the Advocates Act, 1961 and the rules framed under Section 49 (1) (gg) of the Advocates Act, 1961, in particular, the rules pertaining to form of dresses or robes to be worn by Advocates. In the impugned circular