STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. RAJA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There are two objections by the office in the present case.

(2.) The appeal was filed in the year 1954 by Mr. B. N. Roy who was one of the Standing Counsel. Later on the Standing Counsel was changed by the Government and no memorandum of appearance has been filed by the new .Standing Counsel. An objection was raised by the office and the Standing Counsel was permitted to file his power on behalf of the appellant, which was the State, on 28-7-1949. As no action has been taken by the Standing Counsel to file the power on behalf of the appellant, the matter has been put up before me.

(3.) Learned counsel for the State has taken two objections. Firstly, his contention is that if at any time any Standing Counsel has appeared it is no longer necessary thereafter for his successor in office to file a vakalatnama or memorandum of appearance. His argument was that he appears in a case by virtue of his being a Standing Counsel, and whosoever he may be, he will be deemed to be counsel for that case. I am unable to agree with that contention. There is an agreement between the State Government as a client and the different Standing Counsel that they shall be appearing exclusively for the State in all cases. So far as this Court is concerned, in its eye the State counsel is also a counsel. Supposing a litigant, who has a number of eases, appoints its own standing counsel and changes them from time to time and if a change take place and it is urged on behalf of that client that no fresh vakalatnama is necessary, that could not be allowed. Similarly, in the present case the successor of Mr. Roy cannot be allowed to appear unless he has filed the power. Therefore, the present Standing Counsel has to file a power on behalf of the appellant.