D GOPALAN Vs. GOVT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "The petitioner claims that he has moved this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution to advance the cause of general public and by way of public interest litigation by filing this writ petition. Though in form the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus, in substance the relief prayed for is to quash the order of appointment appointing the third respondent as Public Prosecutor.

(2.) EVEN at the outset, it may be made clear that the petitioner has in unequivocal terms stated in para 2 of the affidavit as follows: "i humbly submit the third respondent is an advocate, it appears nearly 25 years standing in the Bar and no doubt command more respect, reputation for his professional integrity among the Members of the Bar and the general public". Notwithstanding the above encomium paid, to the third respondent, the petitioner challenges the appointment of the third respondent as Public Prosecutor on the ground that he being a Senior Advocate, has to submit himself to certain statutory restrictions imposed on Senior Advocates by the Advocate s Act and the Rules framed thereunder and such restrictions will not allow the third respondent to discharge his duties as Public prosecutor to the best of his abilities. In other words, he cannot file any vakalatnama or appearence and cannot have direct contact with the parties-clients. If that be so, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, he cannot do justice in important criminal appeals, referred trials and HABEAS CORPUS matter. Learned counsel explained that unless the public Prosecutor discusses the matters with the concerned Police Official or other Officials, it is not possible for him to represent the State case or causes with full force. He also submitted that he cannot discharge the duties imposed on the Public Prosecutor under Secs. 199, 321, 377 and 378 of Code of criminal Procedure. Learned counsel also brought to my notice Rules 46 and 209 of Criminal Rules of Practice and contended that the authorities concerned cannot directly correspond with the Public Prosecutor. In support of his arguments he cited the following decisions: RAJENDRA KUMAR v. STATE, 1980 crl. L. J. 108: (1980)3 S. C. C. 435, MARAPPA GOUNDER v. VENKATACHALAM, 1983 l. W. (Crl.) 1, VEERASWAMI, N. v. STATE, 1984 M. L. J. (Crl.) 609: 1984 L. W. (Crl.)268: 1985 Crl. L. J. 572, SHEEMANDHU PASWAN v. STATE OF BIHAR, (1983)1 S. C. C. 438: A. I. R. 1983 S. C. 194 and BADRUDEEN, P. S. N. v. MRS. SELVAN RAJ KENNEL, 1987 l. W. (Crl.) 365. He also cited another judgment of the Supreme Court reported in rajasthan v. SHEENKARAN, 1981 L. W. (Crl.) 32 (S. N. ).

(3.) FOR the foregoing reasons. I do not find any case for issuing rule nisi as prayed for. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.