UTTAM KUMAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether an accused in a criminal case pending trial and being prosecuted by the State can be identified and appointed by the State as a Deputy Advocate General for conducting the cases of the State, is the question mooted in this appeal. The writ of quo warranto sought for by the writ Petitioner, a lawyer of this Court, has been turned down by the learned Single Judge for want of any statutory provisions/rules/norms as to the appointment to the post in question and hence the challenge.

(2.) Before answering the above question a brief appreciation of the given factual context is felt necessary. The Appellant is a lawyer enrolled in the year 1985 and is stated as practising in this Court after formation of the State. The 3rd Respondent is also a lawyer practising in this Court, who came to be appointed as a Deputy Advocate General, as per the proceedings dated 02.01.2019 issued by the 1st Respondent. The said appointment is stated as highly arbitrary and without making any enquiry as to the antecedents of the 3rd Respondent. It is stated as without proper consultation with the Advocate General and without any regard to the institutional integrity attached to the said office. It is also contended that it is an instance of total arbitrary exercise of power and displays wednesbury unreasonableness. Though, the Appellant had preferred representations before the 2nd Respondent/Advocate General and also before the Minister for Law, it has not yielded any positive result, which made him to file the writ petition also producing a copy of the appointment order dated 02.01.2019 as Annexure P/1, a copy of the FIR dated 12.10.2012 as Annexure P/2, a copy of the charge framed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilha as Annexure P/3 and copies of the representations preferred by the Appellant before different authorities (collectively) as Annexure P/4.

(3.) The prayers in the writ petition were in the following terms: