( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to implement the Andhra Pradesh Advocates Fee Rules, 1990 (in short the Rules ) with effect from preceding three years from the date of filing of this writ petition to all the Government Pleaders, Assistant Government Pleaders and Standing Counsels of the State Government Organisations.

( 2 ) THIS writ petition is styled as public interest litigation . The petitioner states that she was the Standing Counsel to M. C. H. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, she states that the Standing Counsels in the State are being exploited by the State Government by not following the Rules, and the Government Pleaders, Assistant Government Pleaders and the Standing Counsels for different State Government Organisations are paid fees less than what the Rules prescribe, and they are being paid consolidated salary. She further states that unless one has a bargaining power with the Government, such person cannot get justice or due share. She also stated that some Government Pleaders in the Civil Courts arc not being paid salaries for the last twenty months, in spite of submitting representations. She also made some allegations against the Advocate General. But from reading of the cause title, I find that the Advocate General is not made a party to this Writ Petition and as such, it is not fair on the part of the petitioner to make certain allegations on the Advocate General, without impleading him as one of the respondents. The petitioner ultimately prayed in the writ petition that direction may be issued to implement the Rules immediately.

( 3 ) A counter is filed denying the allegations made in the writ petition, further stating that such a writ petition in the form of public interest litigation is not maintainable for and on behalf of the Government Pleaders, Assistant Government Pleaders, and Standing Counsels since they cannot be said to be persons belonging to under-privileged class, unable to represent their grievances, if any, against the Government. It is further stated that the averments made in the writ petition are very vague and not specific and it is not stated as to which Government Pleader, the salaries were not paid for the last twenty months etc, and if there are any specific cases of non-payment of remuneration, a representation could be made to the concerned authority. Regarding the Standing Counsels of the Municipal Corporations and other institutions are concerned, such corporations may be responsible to pay such fee, as admissible under their regulations and it is not for the Government to pay the remuneration on their behalf. It is further stated that a reference to the Advocate General in the affidavit of the petitioner is irrelevant and it is made only with a mischievous and defamatory intention and, therefore, those statements made against him are liable to be struck off It is further stated that the petitioner has not demonstrated as to how there is violation of statutory provisions of the Rules. Therefore, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed, more so in view of the vague allegations made in the writ petition.

( 4 ) TO this counter, a reply statement is filed by the petitioner stating that the person who has filed counter affidavit is not a party to the writ petition, therefore, he is not entitled to file counter affidavit, opposing the relief sought and he is also not authorised to file such affidavit. It is further stated that this counter is prepared at the instance of the Advocate General and the person who has filed the affidavit has not applied his mind. It is further reiterated that the writ petition is filed by way of public interest litigation on behalf of Law Officers of the State and State Organisations, since Law Officers as a Class are weak parties and are unable to represent their grievances with the fear of termination of their appointment. It is further stated that regarding t