K J ANTONY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What is sought for in this Original Petition is a writ of quo warranto or such other appropriate writ, order or direction to the second respondent directing him to satisfy this court as to under what authority he is holding the post of Additional Advocate General of the State. A declaration that the Governor of the State has no jurisdiction to create the post of Additional Advocate General for the State and therefore the second respondent has no right to hold the office of Advocate General is also prayed for by the petitioner. It is claimed in the Writ Petition that being a citizen of India and tax payer of the State, the petitioner is interested in seeing that the Constitutional mandates are not violated by any branch of the State. The basis of his contention is the provision in Art.165 of the Constitution, which reads as follows:

(2.) In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State by the Law Secretary to the Government, it is pointed out that by G .O. Ms. 58/71/Law dated 21-8-1971, Government, among other things, created one post of Senior Government Pleader and by the very same order, the second respondent was appointed to that post. By order dated 22nd July, 1974, the Government redesignated the post of Senior Government Pleader in the High Court as Additional Advocate General. A copy of the said order has been produced along with the counter affidavit marked in the case as Ext. R-5. Ext. R-5 also contains the order that the second respondent who was holding the post of Senior Government Pleader would continue to be Additional Advocate General. It is further provided therein that his duties, remuneration etc., will remain as at present. The counter proceeds to state that even after his appointment as Additional Advocate General, the second respondent continues to be a Law Officer whose conditions of service, duties and remunerations are governed by Ext. R-2 and that the Additional Advocate General appointed under Ext. R-5 does not have any of the powers, duties and privileges of the Advocate General. Even after the appointment of the second respondent as Additional Advocate General, it is contended by the State in the counter that there is only one Advocate General for the State. Again it is stated in the counter affidavit that there is absolutely no violation of any of the provisions of the Constitution of India. The allegation made in the petition that the impugned order has been made to favour the second respondent is also denied in the counter affidavit.