UTTAM KUMAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, himself a lawyer, would seek quashment of the appointment of Respondent No.3 Shri Rajneesh Singh Baghel, on the post of Deputy Advocate General by issuance of writ of quo warranto.

(2.) Challenge to the appointment of respondent No.3 is based on the ground that at the time when respondent No.3 was elected and working as Joint Secretary of the High Court Bar Association, he displaced and removed the name plates of the advocates, which they have put over the tables/chairs in the common hall of the Advocate Chambers. When respondent No.3 was committing this wrongful action, the petitioner protested upon which the said respondent used his muscle power and beat the petitioner with the help of other advocates, at the same time using filthy abuses and criminally intimidating him. On petitioner's report, Crime No.250/2012 was registered by the concerned police for offence under Sections 294, 506, 323/34 of the IPC and the trial is pending against him before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Belha. On respondent No.3 being appointed as Deputy Advocate General vide State Government's order dated 2.1.2019, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Advocate General and the Secretary, Law and Legislative Affairs Department on

(3.) It is argued that respondent No.3 lacks institutional integrity attached to the office of Deputy Advocate General and appointment has been made without effective consultation with the Advocate General. Referring to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matters of Centre for PIL & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr,2011 2 JT(SC) 613 , N. Kannadasan Vs. Ajoy Khose and Others, 2009 7 SCC 1 State of Punjab Vs. Salil Sabhlok and Others, 2013 5 SCC 1 , Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Another Vs. Mehar Singh, 2013 7 SCC 685 and Division Bench judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in the matter of Sunil Samdaria Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others {Civil Writ Petition No.2624/2014, decided on 23.4.2015}. It is argued that owing to pendency of criminal case against respondent No.3, he is not suitable for the post of Deputy Advocate General, therefore, his appointment deserves to be quashed.