The appointment of an Additional Advocate-General is not barred by Art.165 of the Constitution, and the relevant legal provisions allow for the appointment.

1. The petitioner seeks a writ of quo-warranto, challenging the appointment of an Additional Advocate-General for this State, for a term of three years from 1st January 1976, by Ext. P1 order dated 26121975. By Ext. P2 order of the same date, the term of office of the present incumbent as the Advocate-General of the State was extended for a further period of three years, from 1st January, 1976. Both the appointments were under Art.165 (1) of the Constitution of India. It is not for us to concern ourselves with the policy underlying these appointments or even with the propriety of duplicating the office of Advocate-General. A writ of quo-warranto having been sought for, we propose to address ourselves only to the question whether the 2nd respondent has title to the office of the Additional Advocate-General or is a usurper of the said office.

2. The writ petition was admitted by a learned judge on 29 31976 and notice was ordered to the respondents. On the same date on which notice was ordered, and before the same had been served on the other side, the learned judge recorded his view that in view of the importance of the question involved, the petition should be heard by a Division Bench. There was a ruling of a learned judge of this Court in Antony v. State of Kerala (1975 KLT. 678), where a writ of quo warranto was prayed for against the re-designation of the post of the Senior Government Pleader as Additional Advocate-General. The contention of the State in that writ petition, as seen from the judgment, was that even after his appointment as Additional Advocate-General, the 2nd respondent continued to be a Law Officer whose conditions of service, duties and remuneration governed are by the Rules (GO; prescribed for the purpose, and that the Additional Advocate-General did not have any of the powers, duties or privileges of the Advocate-General. It was the State's contention that even after the said appointment of the 2nd respondent, there was only one Advocate-General for the State. The learned judge, in dismissing the writ petition, observed that Art.165 of the Constitution, did not bar the appointment of an Additional Advocate-General, and cited Art.367 of the Constitution and S.13 of the General Clauses Act, in support of the said conclusion. The learned judge, who admitted this writ petition and expressed the view that it may be heard by a Division Bench, did not notice the judgment in Antony v. State of Kerala (1975 KLT. 678).

3. Art.165 of the Constitution of India reads as follows: "165. Advocate-General for the State.

(1) The Governor of each State shall appoint a person who is qualified to be appointed a judge of a High Court to be Advocate-General for the State.

(2) It shall be the duty of the Advocate-General to give advice to the Government of the State upon such legal matters, and to perform such other duties of a legal character, as may from time to time be referred or assigned to him by the Governor, and to discharge the functions, conferred on him by or under this Constitution or any other law for the time being in force.

(3) The Advocate-General shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor, and shall receive such remuneration as the Governor may determine."

Clause (1) deals with the appointment to the office; clause (2) provides for the duties and functions of the Advocate-General; and clause (3) provides for the duration of bis office. One important Constitutional function or privilege of the Advocate-General, provided by Art.177 of the Constitution, is his right to speak, and otherwise take part in, the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of the State, or, in States having a Legislative Council, in both Houses, but he shall have no right to vote. Regarding his duties and functions under any other law for the time being in force, Counsel for the petitioner stressed the following: Under S.8(4) of the Bar Councils Act, as it stood at the time of the impugned appointment, the Advocate-General