BHADRESWAR TANTI Vs. S N CHOUDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Bhadreswar Tanti a practising advocate of this Court and a member of the Gauhati High Court Bar Association has filed the instant petition challenging the appointment of Shri S. N. Choudhury as Additional Advocate General Assam, and has prayed for a writ in the nature of Quo Warranto on the grounds, inter alia, that respondent 1 is a junior advocate of the Supreme Court and has not practised before this Court and that he has not practised in any other High Court for a period of ten years. It has also been contended that in addition to the Advocate General, respondent 2 has appointed respondent 1 as the Additional Advocate General in complete disregard of the provisions of Art.165 of the Constitution, which according to the petitioner does not empower respondent 2 to appoint more than one Advocate General. Further it has been averred in the petition that while appointing respondent 1 as Additional Advocate General, the State Government has overlooked the provisions of Cl.(2) of Art.177 of the Constitution. It has also been stated that Additional Advocate General is not entitled to pre-audience in the Court.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have given our anxious consideration to the pleas raised in the petition. In our view the petition lacks merits and deserves to be rejected.

(3.) Art.165 of the Constitution provides that the Governor of each State shall appoint a person who is qualified to be appointed a Judge of a High Court to be Advocate-General for the State. Art.177 empowers the Advocate General to speak in and otherwise to take part in the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of the State. It shall be the duty of the Advocate General to give advice to the Government of the State upon such legal matters and to perform such other duties of a legal character, as may from time to time be referred or assigned to him by the Governor and to discharge the functions conferred on him by or under the Constitution or any other law for the time being in force. The Advocate-General holds office during the pleasure of the Governor and receives such remuneration as the Governor may determine. Sub-clause (2) of Art.217 of the Constitution provides that a person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Judge of a High Court unless he is a citizen of India and -