ASHOK PANDEY ADVOCATE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 18.8.2OOO appointing Sri Anadi Banerjee as Government Advocate for the State of U.P. in the Lucknow Bench of this High Court with a further prayer that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued directing the State Government to comply with the directions of the Hon'ble Prime Minister dated 1.1.2001 as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition and further praying that opposite party No. 4, the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, be directed to remove the Law Minister of U.P. and Minister of Rural Development, U.P., opposite party Nos. 7 and 8 respectively. He has further prayed for writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to consider for imposition of President Rule in the State of U.P. He has also prayed for quashing of all the illegal appointments made for the post of State Counsel and Notaries done throughout the State in violation of the Rules and norms after calling for a list of the same from respondent No. 5. Lastly, a writ of quo warranto has been sought against Sri R. P. Goel, Advocate General, U.P., opposite party No. 6, with a further prayer to direct removal of opposite party No. 6 from the post of Advocate General, U.P.

(2.) Certain facts are required to be discussed to come to the conclusion with regard to various prayers made by the petitioner. The petitioner is an Advocate mostly practising before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court. He also alleges himself to be the Chairman of a Non-Government Organisation, named, as 'Global Human Rights Organisation'. According to the petitioner, on 1.1.2000 he met Hon'ble the Prime Minister of India in the capacity of Chairman of Global Human Rights Organisation to request him to attend a seminar being organised by the above organisation on the subject. "As to whether the protection of human rights should be extended to the persons involved in the inhuman activities". According to the petitioner during conversation with Hon'ble Prime Minister, the Prime Minister made a note dated 1.2.2000 on the bio-data of the petitioner that "Shri Pande Kee Sevayen Len". The petitioner has admitted that in the said bio-data after this note was made by Hon'ble the Prime Minister, the petitioner himself added the words "To the Law Minister U.P." above the said note of Hon'ble the Prime Minister and also added the following words "For Government Advocate in the Lucknow Bench" were also added by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he submitted this bio-data in the State Government where the process for consideration of the same started. However, instead of petitioner Sri Anadi Banerjee was appointed as Government Advocate. It has been submitted by Sri Ashok Pandey, the petitioner in person, that after the said endorsement made by Hon'ble the Prime Minister, he had a right to be appointed as Government Advocate as there is no procedure existing for appointment of Government Advocate and further once the process had started, the Advocate General should have also recorded his opinion in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of quo warranto to be issued for removal of the Advocate General by the Chief Minister. The petitioner has made many wild allegations against Sri Radhey Shyam Gupta, the present Law Minister of U.P., Shri Shiv Prasad Shukla presently holding the portfolio of Minister for Rural Development and former Law Minister, U.P, and Sri R. P. Goel, the present Advocate General of U.P.

(3.) Sri Pandey contended that since the Ministers are subordinate to the Chief Minister, the petitioner had represented to the Chief Minister for removal of respondent Nos. 7 and 8, the two Ministers of the Cabinet of the U.P. Government and had also requested that all appointments of Government Counsel be set aside and he be appointed in the light of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India under Articles 256 and 257 (1) of the Constitution of India. On the query to explain the executive powers of the Union of India, the petitioner in person conceded that he is not aware about the said powers. The petitioner has further submitted that in the light of his arguments, the constitutional machinery in the State of U.P. has failed and, therefore, under Articles 356 and 365 of Constitution of India, a direction be issued to dismiss the State Government and to impose the President Rule.