(1.) Present writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have been preferred challenging the constitutional validity of Section 2 of U.P. Act No.18 of 1991 i.e., Code of Criminal Procedure (U.P. Amendment) Act, 1991, whereby, sub-section (1) of Section 24 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been amended and sub-section (4), (5), (6) of Section 24 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short CrPC), has been omitted along with the provisions contained in sub-section (7) by which sub-section (6) has been referred to.
(2.) The petitioner has also assailed the Circular dated 13.8.2008 by which the Government of U.P., has amended the L.R. Manual to the extent it provides the consultation with the District Judge mandatory for appointment on the post of District Government Counsels along with consequential action.
(3.) The present writ petitions were part of the bunch of writ petitions whereby, the Circular dated 13.8.2008 has been impugned, the leading one of which is Writ Petition No.7851 (M/B) of 2008: U.P. Shaskiya Adhivakta Kalyan Samiti. Vs. State of U.P., decided by separate judgment and order dated 6.1.2012. Keeping in view the fact that vires of U.P. Amendment , has been impugned in the present writ petitions, it is decided by the present separate judgment.