P NAVEEN REDDY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition for the issue of a writ of Que warrant to is filed by a member of the Bar directed against respondents 2 and 3 who are the Advocate-General and the eo-nominee person holding the office to show under what authority he is conducting the Criminal cases like appeals, revisions, bail applications etc., in the High Court. Sri K. Subrahmanya Reddy, Senior Advocate, has taken notice at the stage of admission on behalf of the State (1st respondent) as well as the Advocate-General. I have heard Sri Y. Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Subrahmanya Reddy, on behalf of the respondents at some length at the stage of admission.

(2.) The Public Prosecutor of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh had resigned, which was also accepted by the Government on 12-1-1990 and the Government appears to have made an arrangement pending the appointment of a Public Prosecutor which is evident from the letter dated 20-1-1990 addressed to the Advocate-General which reads as follows:

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, there shall be a Public Prosecutor for the High Court as is contemplated by Section 24(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which reads as follows :