The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment of Additional Advocate General in the State of U.P. did not violate Article 165 of the Constitution of India.

SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN, C. J.

( 1 ) IN the Instant writ petition, the petitioner an advocate, claiming to espouse the cause of the public in the form of Public Interest Litigation, has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the letter of respondent No. 2 as contained in Annexure-3 dated 11th January. 2000, to the writ petition. He further prayed for a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to clarify to all the State Governments that there cannot be an Additional Advocate General and to advise them to remove the Additional advocate General appointed by them. Third prayer made in the writ petition is for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 not to allow respondent Nos. 5 to 8 to work as Advocate General and Additional Advocate General respectively and to cancel the order of appointment of respondent Nos. 5 to 8.

( 2 ) THE contention of the writ petitioner is that the Constitution only contemplated for the appointment of Advocate General and there exists no provision in the Constitution of India for the appointment of Additional Advocate General. In that regard, the petitioner cited the example of the President. Vice-President, Prime Minister. Attorney General of India and other constitutional offices and has submitted that there cannot be an Additional President. Additional vice-President or Additional Prime Minister or like that there cannot be an Additional Advocate general.

( 3 ) THUS, the argument of the petitioner, in nutshell, appears to be is that although the Constitution of India does not provide for the appointment of Additional Advocate General for the State, the appointment of respondent Nos. 6 to 8 is non-est, inasmuch as. Article 165 of the Constitution of india only mandates for the appointment of Advocate General. The office of the Advocate general, which is constitutional in nature, cannot be bifurcated. It was asserted by the petitioner that the Office of the Advocate General is one of the fifteen Constitutional offices of the country. When the framers of the Constitution have not created the Office of Additional advocate General, the Government of U. P. can in no case appoint the Additional Advocate general.

( 4 ) IT was averred that the petitioner, with a view to remove the lacuna, addressed several letters to Attorney General of India in that regard. The Attorney General of India, in reply to the aforesaid petitions made by the petitioner, by means of his letter dated 11. 1. 2000. addressed to the petitioner, stated that it would be appropriate for him to deal with the matter, which concerned a State High Court. The appropriate person with whom the petitioner should be in communication, is the Advocate General of Uttar Pradesh.

( 5 ) SURPRISINGLY, the petitioner wants that the letter written by Attorney General of India to him, be quashed. Thereafter, the petitioner also addressed the letters to the Advocate General of the state and the Law Minister of the State in that regard.

( 6 ) WHEN the petitioner was confronted with the Full Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in m. K. Padmanabhan v. State of Kerala, 1978 Lab IC 1336, and another judgment of the Gauhati high Court passed in Badreshwar v. S. N. Chaudhari, AIR 1985 Gau 32, petitioner submitted that the said decisions require reconsideration.

( 7 ) MR. Umesh Chandra, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State Government, vehemently urged that the Office of Additional Advocate General in the State of U, P. was created, for the first time, in the year 1965 and to that effect a notification was issued by the state Government, which was produced before this Court. In the aforesaid notification issued in the year 1965, Mr. Shanti Bhushan, who was then holding the office of the Senior Standing counsel, was designated as Additional Advocate General. In the said Notification, specific functions were assigned to t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document