S VIJAYALAKSHMI Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER, who is a practicing advocate, has come up with this writ petition seeking issue of a Writ of Quo Warranto and to direct the Respondents to show cause under what authority the fourth respondent is functioning as the Government advocate (Criminal Side) of Madras High Court.

(2.) HEARD Mr. Manikandan Vathan Chettiar, learned counsel for the petitioner and P.S. Raman, learned advocate General, appearing on behalf of Respondents 1 and 2 and being assisted by R. Anitha, learned Additional Government Pleader.

(3.) SO far as the said contention is concerned, it is seen that even admittedly, the Fourth Respondent is only a Government advocate (Criminal Side) and he was not appointed either as Public Prosecutor or as Additional or Assistant Public Prosecutor. Section 24(1) of the Code contemplates appointment of one Public Prosecutor and one or more Additional Public Prosecutor for the High Court. The appointment has to be made after consultation with the High Court. The words 'High Court' signify the Full Court and consequently, the appointment of Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutors should actually go through the consultative process prescribed by Section 24(1) of the Code. Section 24( 1) of the Code does not stipulate that the appointment of a Government advocate (Criminal Side) should also go through the same consultative process as prescribed by Section 24(1) of the Code in the case of Public Prosecutor of Additional Public Prosecutors. Therefore, the contention that the process was not carried out is thoroughly misconceived.