Only one Advocate General may be appointed to preserve the constitutional integrity and accountability of the office.

1 Leave granted.

2 The authority of a State to appoint Additional Advocate General in terms of Art.165 of the Constitution of India is the core question involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 30.4.1998 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition No. 13202 of 1998.

3 The appellants herein filed the aforementioned writ petition questioning the appointment of two Additional Advocate Generals by the Government of Andhra Pradesh on various grounds. The main contention of the appellants raised before the High Court as also before us, however, is that having regard to the expression used in Art.165 of the Constitution of India appointment of more than one Advocate General is not contemplated therein.

4 The High Court negatived the said contention holding : (i) Having regarding to Art.367 of the Constitution of India as also S.13 of the General Clauses Act, 1.897, the provision in singular for appointment of an Advocate General would include plural; (ii) Having regard to the fact that Additional Advocate Generals have been appointed in the States of Rajasthan, Jammu & Kashmir and Kerala, there is no reason as to why Additional Advocate Generals cannot be appointed in the State of Andhra Pradesh.; and (iii) Merely because there is a post of Additional Advocate General, the same would not mean and imply that Additional Advocate General can perform the constitutional statutory functions.

5 In support of its findings, reliance has been placed on M.K. Padmanabhan v. State of Kerala (1978 (1) LAB I.C. 1336); Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur v. Sitaram (AIR 1993 Rajasthan 76); and Bhadreswar v. S. N. Choudhury (AIR 1985 Gauhati 32).

6 Mr. Har Dev Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, in support of the appeal contended that having regard to the fact that Art.165 of the Constitution of India is clear and unambiguous and, thus, being not open to any interpretation, the provisions of S.13 of the General Clauses Act as also Art.367 of the Constitution of India could not be invoked as the same applies in dealing with interpretation "unless the context otherwise requires".

7 The submission of the learned senior counsel is that Art.367 is applied having regard to Art.372 of the Constitution of India which in turn deals with adaptation of existing law, which has got no relevance in the instant case. The learned counsel urged that, if such an interpretation is given to Art.165 of the , Art.53, 63, 74, 76, 124, 148, 168, 215, 234 and 230 of the will have to be interpreted similarly which would load to absurdity. It was contended that Advocate General appointed under Art.165 of the is not only required to discharge constitutional functions assigned to him, as for example, he has a right to address the Houses of Legislature under Art.177 of the Constitution; but also statutory functions in terms of S.302 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, S.92 of the Code of Civil Procedure and S.23 of the Advocates Act. Furthermore, he as a leader of the Bar has a right of preaudience. It was submitted that as the appointment of Additional Advocate General by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in purported exercise of its power under Art.165 of the was without jurisdiction, the same are liable to be set aside and such appointment cannot foe saved by tracing their source of power to Art.162 of the .

8 Mr. Sudhir Chandra, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, contended that the appointment of Additional Advocate General has necessitated because of the growth and spread of the State activities, as a result thereof it is not possible for an Advocate General alone to handle the heavy work involved on behalf of the State. The learned counsel further contended that even if it be held that the State has no power to appoint Additional Advocate General in terms of Art.165 of the Constitution of India , such power must be held to exist under A