SURAJ NARAIN SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition, under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred in person by Suraj Narain Srivastava, an Advocate practising in this Court over a decade, under the caption of public interest litigation. A large number of averments have been made in it but those to which the petitioner has restricted himself are contained in a part of para 19 of the petition and Ground F of Para 20 thereof. The averment, to which the petitioner has restricted himself in para 19, is that this Court be pleased to direct the opposite parties (originally only two opposite parties, namely, the State of U.P. through its Secretary of Law and Justice, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow (Opposite Party No. 1) and the Legal Remembrancer, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow (Opposite Party No. 2) were impleaded) to produce the entire list of the State Counsel, indicating therein the length of practice at High Court and the date of registration, so that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the deletion of the names of those State Counsel/Brief Holders who have less than requisite length of practice in the High Court. The averment in Ground-F of para 20 is that the act of the opposite parties in appointing advocates, who have less than five years of standing in the High Court as Brief Holders and State Counsel, is illegal; being against the provisions of Legal Remembrancer's Manual (hereinafter referred to as 'L.R. Manual'). Many prayers have also been made in this petition but the petitioner-in-person has urged that prayers (iv) and (vi) be granted. The said prayers read thus :- "(iv) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the appointments of Brief Holder made in violation of para 6.02 of L.R. Manual after seeking the list of them showing details of length of practice of Brief Holders from opposite parties. (vi) To issue any other order direction deems fit in the circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed in the interest of justice.

(2.) It is pertinent to mention that this writ petition was filed before us on 16-8-2002 and we directed it to be placed on 19-8-2002, on which date it was adjourned for 13-9-2002. On 13-9-2002, we heard the petitioner-in-person and the learned Advocate General at considerable length and on the request of the latter adjourned the case to 24-9-2002 for further hearing. We also directed that on the said date the learned Advocate General would furnish a list of advocates, who had been appointed as State Counsel (in any category) and who did not fulfil the eligibility requirement, contained in L.R. Manual. On 24-9-2002 the learned Advocate General produced a list of 25 State Counsel (in any category) who had been appointed contrary to the eligibility requirements contained in the L.R. Manual. We directed the said list to be taken on record and marked it as "A" for identification. On the said date we directed that the 25 advocates mentioned in it be impleaded as opposite party Nos. 3 to 27 in the petition. The said impleadment was carried out by the petitioner-in-person on 26-9-2002 and thereafter the newly impleaded respondents were served. Thereafter we heard this petition on a number of dates. On 13-3-2002 we concluded the hearing, adjourned the case for 21-3-2003; and directed the learned Advocate General to make the entire record available to the Court and to submit a list mentioned therein :- the date on which the opposite parties 3 to 27 had been enrolled to the Bar, appointed as State Counsel, and where it was a case of extension the date of final appointment be mentioned (this was because the list furnished by the learned Advocate General on 24-9-2002 was lacking in these details). On 21-3-2003, along with an affidavit dated 20-3-2003 the said list was filed as Annexure SCA-1. Since the fate of this writ petition depends on the contents of this list we are reproducing it in entirety. It reads thus :- LIST OF BRIEF HOLDERS No. Opp. Party No. Name Regn. No and Date Date of 1st Appointment Date of latest Appointment/Renewal Term upto Remark

(3.) We have heard Mr. Suraj Narain Srivastava, the petitioner-in-person for the petitioner. Mr. S.C. Misra, learned Advocate General of the State of U.P. with Mr. S.A.H. Rizvi, Chief Standing Counsel, High Court, Lucknow for opposite parties No. 1 and 2; Mr. Anil Tewari for opposite party No. 6; Mr. G.K. Mehrotra with Mr. N.S. Chauhan for opposite party No. 7; Dr. L.P. Misra for opposite party No. 9; and Mr. Umesh Chandra with Ms. Bulbul Godyal for opposite party No.25. It is pertinent to mention that although opposite party Nos. 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26 and 27 have been duly served but they have not engaged any counsel and Mr. S.N. Bhardwaj, who has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party No. 14 has not appeared.