ORDER : Nitin Jamdar, C.J. The Government and its officers, as per Rule 17 (2) of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971 , are entitled to file memo of appearance and all others shall file vakalath. The High Court of Kerala notifies and maintains a list of Standing Counsels for various institutions in accordance with the office circular dated 12 September 2018. According to the Circular, institutions coming under the head “Government” (List I) shall be allowed to designate their Standing Counsel and such Standing Counsels can enter appearance by filing memo of appearance, and the institutions coming under the definition of “State” (Statutory bodies, Public Sector companies, Nationalised Banks, Universities, etc.) (List II), shall be allowed to appoint Standing Counsel, but they have to file vakalath in the cases in which they appear. 2. In one matter, the Respondent – Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority, was represented by its Standing Counsel. When the Standing Counsel filed a memo of appearance for the said institution, the Registry noted a defect by referring to the office circular dated 12 September 2018, stating that vakalath needs to be filed. When the matter came up for hearing, the learned Standing Counsel submitted that vakalathnama cannot be insisted upon and that only a memo is sufficient, and made a representation to the Registry. The matter was thereafter registered as J.P.P. No. 4 of 2025. 3. We have heard Mr. V. Tekchand, learned Senior Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 – State, Ms. Nayanpally Ramola, learned counsel for Respondent No. 3, and Ms. Aiswarya, learned counsel for Respondent No. 4. The learned Senior Advocate Mr. B. G. Harindranath has assisted the Court as the learned Amicus Curiae. 4. The foundation of this Judicial Practice and Procedure petition, that is the communication/stand of the learned counsel representing the statutory authority, is that a public authority, being an instrumentality of the State, ought to be exempted from filing vakalathnama. This is based on the premise that the position that applies to the State should even apply to the public authorities. 5. This is based on the premise that the position that applies to the State should even apply to the public authorities. 5. The learned Amicus Curiae submits that Rule 17(2) of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971 applies only to advocates appearing for the Central and State Governments, who are permitted to file a memo of appearance, and that the said provision does not extend to public sector undertakings or other institutions under the control of the State Government. The learned Amicus Curiae points out that there is a distinction between the Central and State Governments and the authorities amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The learned Amicus Curiae has relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of State of Bihar v. Union of India and Another, (1970) 1 SCC 67 , Shrikant v. Vasantrao and Others, (2006) 2 SCC 682 and Kanpur Jal Sansthan and Another v. Bapu Constructions, (2015) 5 SCC 267 . He submitted that apart from the statutory provision, a practical difficulty would also arise inasmuch as a vakalathnama needs to be affixed with the stamp for Advocates’ Welfare Fund, and there being large number of public authorities, a substantial part of contribution to the Advocates’ Welfare Fund would be lost if such an interpretation is adopted. 6. There can be no doubt that there is a distinction between the Central or State Government on the one hand and the Authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India on the other. The phrase “public servant in official capacity” referred to under Rule 17(2) of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971 by applying the principle of noscitur a sociis would take colour from the preceding words, that are, the Central or State Government. Thus, while raising the issue, the concerned Standing Counsel of the statutory authority has overlooked the distinction. Unless it is shown to the contrary, Rule 17(2) cannot be applied to the Authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. However, the present proceedings are not adversarial proceedings, and the concerned Standing Counsel is not represented before us to show any further position of law. 7. Unless it is shown to the contrary, Rule 17(2) cannot be applied to the Authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. However, the present proceedings are not adversarial proceedings, and the concerned Standing Counsel is not represented before us to show any further position of law. 7. In these circumstances, since the distinction pointed out by the learned Amicus Curiae has not been addressed in the communication of the concerned Standing Counsel, which is the foundation of making a reference to the petition, we dispose of this petition returning the reference made under the J.P.P. stating the above position.