HANUMANTHARAO Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is Shri Motuni Hanumantha Rao. The Government of Andhra Pradesh passed G. O. Ms. No. 1401, dated 28-12-1964 as follows :

(2.) The sole respondent is the Government, of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Chief secretary. The respondent tiled counter-affidavit dated 20-6.-1965 signed by the Chief Secretary denying the various allegations in the petition. The petitioner filed an additional affidavit dated 9-8-1965. The petitioner was not represented by an Advocate. He chose to argue his case himselt. He did so with force, precision, ability and dignity. We are dealing below with the contentions actually urged before us. Under each contention, we refer to the relevant allegations in the petitioner's aitidavit and those in the counter-affidavit, wherever necessary.

(3.) The petitioner has contended that the action of the Government in passing G. O. Ms No, 1402 wherein he was denied the right to legal advice is illegal. Though G. O. Ms. No. 1537 dated 26-8-1964 is mentioned iu G. O. Ms No. 1402, that G. O. Ms. No. 1537 had been superseded by G. O. Ms. No. 1190 dated 28-10-1964. Both sides are agreed that G. O. Ms. No. 1190 applies to the case and they relied on various provisions in that G. O. The provision, in G. O. Ms No. 1190 regarding legal advice is contained in Clause 26 which is substantially similar to the corresponding clause ot G. O. Ms. No. 1537 which was referred to in G. O. Ms. No. 1402 relating to the petitioner. Article 22 of the Constitution runs as follows :-