S K SUNDARUM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W.P. No. 2505 of 1995, apparently for issue of mandamus, is really one for issue of quo warranto against the second respondent, who is holding the post of Advocate-General of Tamil Nadu from 21-4-1994. There is no allegation of any infirmity or illegality in the appointment. According to the petitioner, who is an advocate in this Court, the second respondent is not entitled to continue to function as Advocate-General in view of the serious charges made against him. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, three matters have been set out referring to certain events which have taken place after the appointment of the second respondent, consequent to which, according to the petitioner, the second respondent's continuation in office will be illegal and against public interest. The first of them is that the Governor of Tamil Nadu has made an indictment against the second respondent imputing serious professional misconduct in an exclusive interview given to the representative of a fortnightly magazine by name "Front Line", while replying to a question put by the representative of the magazine as regards the ideal relationship between the Chief Minister and the Governor. The latter is reported to have said inter alia "..There were some Writ Petitions in which the Advocate-General works against me. The Advocate-General is my advocate. He doesn't (function so). Then the Advocate-General also sets up people to work against me. " According to the petitioner, the aforesaid answer would imply that the Governor, who is the highest Constitutional functionary in the State, is accusing the second respondent of serious professional misconduct, for which he is liable to be dealt with under Rule 24 of the Bar Council of India Rules and he cannot, therefore, continue to be the Advocate-General. The petitioner sent a telegram dated 11-2-1995 to the Governor, the Chief Minister, the Chief Justice of the High Court, the Chief Secretary to the Government and the Secretary to the Government, Home Department, making a demand to relieve the second respondent from the post of Advocate-General.

(2.) THE second event referred to in the affidavit is that the second respondent was a party in T.O.S. No. 28 of 1982 and C.S. No. 149 of 1980 on the Original Side of this Court, being an executor of a will stated to have been executed by one Padmini Chandrasekaran. In O.P. 117 of 1981 a learned single judge of this Court, passed an order on 21-7-1981 condemning the second respondent for getting the aforesaid will probated without mentioning in the petition that the testatrix had a legal heir in her husband. A few days after assuming office of the Advocate-General on 21-4-1994, he got into the witness box, gave evidence and subjected himself to cross-examination in the test-amentary proceedings. According to the affidavit, in the 150 years history of the Madras High Court, an Advocate-General getting into the box and giving evidence is unheard of and serious allegations that the will was brought about by the second respondent for his personal benefit have been made in the said proceedings. THE State Government had overlooked that aspect before appointing the second respondent as Advocate-General. It is, therefore, not in keeping with the dignity of the high office to allow him facing such serious charges to hold the office.

(3.) THE petitioner has no alternative remedy but to approach this Court. On the aforesaid allegations, the petitioner has prayed for issue of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction in the nature of a writ directing the State of Tamil Nadu, the first respondent, to remove the second respondent from the office of the Advocate-General.