JUDGMENT : T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner, a former Judge of this Court, who has retired on 1.10.2012. The challenge is against Exhibit P3 communication issued by the Bar Council of Kerala. The further relief sought for is to declare that the petitioner is entitled to resume practice as a Senior Advocate before the Courts in India where he is entitled to practice by virtue of Article 220(2) of the Constitution of India read with Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 and that the petitioner is not required to get any permission from the respondent as a precondition for resuming practice as an Advocate before the Courts in India where he is entitled to practice by virtue of Article 220(2) of the Constitution of India read with Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961. 2. It is pointed out in the Writ Petition that the petitioner has been designated as a Senior Advocate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as per Exhibit P2 dated 27.11.2012. Before that the petitioner had addressed Exhibit P1 communication to the respondent, intimating his intention to resume practice as an Advocate before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The petitioner relies upon Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961, which provides that every advocate whose name is entered in the State roll shall be entitled as of right to practice throughout the territories to which the Act extends. Reliance is placed on Article 220(2) of the Constitution of India, which prohibits a retired Judge from practising in any Court within the State in which he was a High Court Judge. It is pointed out that it is in terms of the above provision that the petitioner informed about the intention to resume practice as an Advocate under the Supreme Court and various High Courts in the country, other than High Court of Kerala. 3. By Exhibit P3 intimation, the Secretary of the Bar Council of Kerala intimated the inability of the Enrolment Committee to allow the application for resumption of practice at this stage and the original enrolment certificate and cheque dated 3.10.2012 for Rs. 10,000/- have been returned. 4. After taking notice, the learned counsel appearing for the Bar Council has filed an affidavit of the Secretary of the Bar Council of Kerala. 5. 10,000/- have been returned. 4. After taking notice, the learned counsel appearing for the Bar Council has filed an affidavit of the Secretary of the Bar Council of Kerala. 5. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri A.K. Jayasankar Nambiar and the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, Shri M.K. Damodaran. 6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Bar Council, Shri M.K. Damodaran submitted that as far as former Judges of any High Courts, under Part II of Chapter VIII of the Bar Council of India Rules, there is a provision to the effect that "any person who has held office as a Judge of any High Court in India may on retirement be admitted as an advocate on the roll of any State Council where he is eligible to practice." It is therefore submitted that the petitioner may have to submit an application before the Bar Council of India with intimation to the Bar Council of Kerala for transferring the enrolment to the Delhi Bar Council. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the said rule alone will apply. 7. In the light of the averments in paragraph Nos.10 and 15 of the counter affidavit, it can be seen that no permission of the respondent-Bar Council is required and the petitioner will file an appropriate application before the Bar Council of India with intimation to the Bar Council of Kerala for transferring the enrolment to the Delhi Bar Council, if required. 8. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of.