RATNABH PATI TRIPATHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ Petition is directed against the order of appointment of opposite party No. 5 as DitrictGovernment Counsel (Criminal), Gorakhpur (to be hereinafter referred as DGC), vide order dated 22-11-1999 and the order dated 24-11-1999 passed by the District Judge, Gorakhpur, in compliance of the aforesaid Government order. The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining oppoisite party No. 5 from functioning as DGC (Criminal), Gorakhpur, and further prayed for a direction for appointment of the petitioner as DGC (Criminal), Gorakhpur. The petitioner has also made a prayer for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the oppoiste parties 1 to 4 to do the needful in the interest of the country and the State in the matter of opposite party No. 5, misrepresenting himself to be an Indian citizen by birth. In totality the appointment of opposite party No. 5 has been challenged on the ground of his Nationality.

(2.) Heard Sri Umesh Chandra, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Sri K.B. Sinha, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 5, Sri A.K. Verma, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for opposite party Nos. 2 and 3, and Sri H.B. Singh Additional Standing Counsel for the Union of India.

(3.) Sri Umesh Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that opposite party No. 5 is a Nepalese citizen by birth. In support he has relied upon the certificate contained in Annexure No. 1 indicating that opposite party No. 5 Avanendra Nath Shukla was born in Nepal and is a citizen of Nepal. According to him the certificate has been issued by the Nepal's Government authority concerned. It has also been pointed out that the certificate bears the photograph and signature of opposite party No. 5. It has been emphatically argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that opposite party No. 5 misrepresented before the U.P. Bar Council to get himself registered as an Advocate by declaring himself as an Indian citizen. In this connection, he has referred to internal page No. 3 of the application for registration contained in Annexure No. 3 i.e. Certificate of Nationality or declaration to this effect. it has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that with the application for registration the opposite party No. 5 has given only the declaration to the effect that he is a citizen of India by birth. However, the Certificate of Nationality has not been brought on record by him. Accordingly he misled the authorities of the U.P. Bar council to get his registration as an Advocate in the year 1976. The petitioner has also objected that the place of birth has not been mentioned by opposite party No. 5 in the application form addressed to the U.P. Bar Council. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the contents of the affidavit accompanying the application for registration of opposite party No. 5 are vague. Further, it has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that in view of the provisions of the Advocates Act only a citizen of India can apply for registration with the Bar Council and since opposite party No. 5 is not a citizen of India, he misrepresented and fraudulently got himself enrolled as an Advocate with the U.P. Bar Council.