SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1977 Supreme(Ker) 193

V.P.GOPALAN NAMBIYAR, K.K.NARENDRAN
PADMANABHAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent


Judgment :-

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
































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top