ORDER : The Registry of this Court has raised an objection regarding the appearance memo filed by the Standing Counsel for the 8th respondent - The Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority and insisted on a vakalath being filed. The learned Counsel has questioned the said objection. 2. The Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority has appointed a Standing Counsel. However, when the said Counsel for the 8th respondent filed a memo of appearance, the Registry of this Court noticed a defect referring to an Office Circular dated 12.09.2018 that all Statutory Bodies, Public Sector Companies, Nationalized Banks, Universities, etc. and appended as Annexure II to the said circular be allowed to appoint Standing Counsel subject to the filing of a vakalath. The objection by the Registry states that though the 8th respondent is a statutory authority and has a Standing Counsel, a vakalath will have to be filed as against a memo of appearance. 3. Sri. M.P.Prakash, the learned Standing Counsel for the 8th respondent submitted that the whole purpose of appointing a Standing Counsel is defeated by insisting on a vakalat nama to be filed, especially when Rules provide otherwise. The learned Counsel submitted that as a Statutory body created under the an Act of Parliament and by a Gazette notification, the requirement for a vakalath ought to be avoided. 4. The 8th respondent is undoubtedly a statutory body created by virtue of a Gazette Notification dated 21.03.2023 issued as per Section 3(3) of the Environment Protection Act, 1986. The constitution of the body is for three years. 5. Rule 17(2) of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971 stipulates that an Advocate appearing on behalf of the Central or State Government or on behalf of any public servant sued or suing in his official capacity shall be required to file a memorandum of appearance. The above referred Rule 17 is extracted below: “17. 5. Rule 17(2) of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971 stipulates that an Advocate appearing on behalf of the Central or State Government or on behalf of any public servant sued or suing in his official capacity shall be required to file a memorandum of appearance. The above referred Rule 17 is extracted below: “17. Production of Vakalath.- (1) No Advocate shall be entitled to act in any proceeding, unless he files a vakalath: Provided that where an Advocate already on record in any proceeding appoints another Advocate to appear for him at the hearing of the case, it shall not be necessary for the latter to file a vakalath: Provided further that an Advocate appearing for an accused person in a criminal proceeding may, instead of filing a vakalth, file a memorandum of appearance containing declaration that he has been duly instructed to appear by/or on behalf of the accused. (2) An advocate appearing on behalf of the Central or State Government or on behalf of any public servant sued or suing in his official capacity shall be required to file only a memorandum of appearance.” 6. The Office Circular dated 12.09.2018 numbered as 6/2018 states that institutions coming under the definition of State like Statutory Bodies, Public Sector Companies, Nationalized Banks, Universities etc. appended as Annexure II to the circular shall be allowed to appoint Standing Counsel but hereafter they shall file vakalath in the cases in which they appear. 7. A reading of the said circular indicates that the Statutory Bodies are treated as coming under the definition of the term ‘State’. Once the Statutory Bodies are treated as coming within the purview of ‘State’, certainly, the benefit provided under Rule 17(2) of the Rules will have to be extended to such Statutory authorities also. 8. Clubbing the Nationalised Banks, Public Sector Companies and Statutory bodies as falling within the same category, for the purpose of filing vakalat, has no rational nexus with the object of requiring the filing of vakalath. Nationalised Banks and Public Sector Companies stand on a different footing from the statutory bodies. The functions exercised by statutory bodies are generally akin to that of the State. Therefore, the Office Circular, to the extent it specifies that those appearing for Statutory Bodies will also have to file a vakalath is contrary to Rule 17(2) of the Rules. Nationalised Banks and Public Sector Companies stand on a different footing from the statutory bodies. The functions exercised by statutory bodies are generally akin to that of the State. Therefore, the Office Circular, to the extent it specifies that those appearing for Statutory Bodies will also have to file a vakalath is contrary to Rule 17(2) of the Rules. The Office circular cannot militate against the rules. The office Circular should have excluded Statutory Bodies from the purview of those required to file vakalath. 9. Since the 8th respondent is a Statutory Body, the benefit of Rule 17(2) ought to be accorded to it. Hence, the objection raised by the Registry is overruled. The memo of appearance submitted by the Standing Counsel for the 8th respondent shall be accepted as sufficient compliance of Rule 17(2) of Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971. The Registry is directed to issue an appropriate revised Circular for its future proper guidance.