CHACKO P C Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH a Division Bench of this Court, in the decision reported in 1997 (1) KLT 788 expressed their displeasure and sorrow by the unseemly controversy between the Advocate General (hereinafter referred to as 'the A. G. ' and the Director General of Prosecution hereinafter referred to as "the DGP") and disposed of the said case with a fond hope that the unhappy episode will be forgotten and not allowed to recur to sully the image of the two offices, the controversy, which appears to have been simmering, has come to the surface again.

(2.) THE root cause for the current controversy is the office direction issued by the Director General of Prosecution under Ext. P-1 dated February 5, 1998 informing the Kerala High Court Advocates' Association and the High Court Advocates Clerks' Association that copies of all criminal cases may be directly forwarded to his office with memo (after the cases are numbered in the registry section of the High Court and before sent to the Bench for admission) and such copies will be entered in the register kept in his office and acknowledgment of the same will be noted in the memo with the seal of his office and under his signature or of any person duly authorised by him. Ext. P2 is the directions issued by the office of the Advocate General dated February 7, 1998, which is also sought to be quashed in these proceedings. Exts. P1 and P2 are reproduced hereunder :<FRM>JUDGEMENT_2_TLKER0_1998Html1.htm</FRM>

(3.) A public interest litigation was filed by a practising lawyer of this Court stating mat because of the controversy and difference of opinion between the A. G. andd. G. P. the petitioner and persons similarly placed are put to utter confusion regarding compliance with the directions given in Exts. P-1 and P-2, which are contradicting each other. The writ petitioner made a representation to the Registrar of this Court, Ext. P4, to which he was not favoured with any reply. The petitioner also made a reference to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court reported in 1997 (1) KLT 788 (supra ). As the issues raised by him are connected with filing procedures of criminal proceedings in this Court, the petitioner filed this writ petition with the following prayers;