JUDGMENT
Jagdish Bhalla, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 18.8.2OOO appointing Sri Anadi Banerjee as Government Advocate for the State of U.P. in the Lucknow Bench of this High Court with a further prayer that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued directing the State Government to comply with the directions of the Hon’ble Prime Minister dated 1.1.2001 as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition and further praying that opposite party No. 4, the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, be directed to remove the Law Minister of U.P. and Minister of Rural Development, U.P., opposite party Nos. 7 and 8 respectively. He has further prayed for writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to consider for imposition of President Rule in the State of U.P. He has also prayed for quashing of all the illegal appointments made for the post of State Counsel and Notaries done throughout the State in violation of the Rules and norms after calling for a list of the same from respondent No. 5. Lastly, a writ of quo warranto has been sought against Sri R. P. Goel, Advocate General, U.P., opposite party No. 6, with a further prayer to direct removal of opposite party No. 6 from the post of Advocate General, U.P.
2. Certain facts are required to be discussed to come to the conclusion with regard to various prayers made by the petitioner. The petitioner is an Advocate mostly practising before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court. He also alleges himself to be the Chairman of a Non-Government Organisation, named, as ‘Global Human Rights Organisation’. According to the petitioner, on 1.1.2000 he met Hon’ble the Prime Minister of India in the capacity of Chairman of Global Human Rights Organisation to request him to attend a seminar being organised by the above organisation on the subject. “As to whether the protection of human rights should be extended to the persons involved in the inhuman activities”. According to the petitioner during conversation with Hon’ble Prime Minister, the Prime Minister made a note dated 1.2.2000 on the bio-data of the petitioner that “Shri Pande Kee Sevayen Len”. The petitioner has admitted that in the said bio-data after this note was made by Hon’ble the Prime Minister, the petitioner himself added the words “To the Law Minister U.P.” above the said note of Hon’ble the Prime Minister and also added the following words “For Government Advocate in the Lucknow Bench” were also added by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he submitted this bio-data in the State Government where the process for consideration of the same started. However, instead of petitioner Sri Anadi Banerjee was appointed as Government Advocate. It has been submitted by Sri Ashok Pandey, the petitioner in person, that after the said endorsement made by Hon’ble the Prime Minister, he had a right to be appointed as Government Advocate as there is no procedure existing for appointment of Government Advocate and further once the process had started, the Advocate General should have also recorded his opinion in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of quo warranto to be issued for removal of the Advocate General by the Chief Minister. The petitioner has made
many wild allegations against Sri Radhey Shyam Gupta, the present Law Minister of U.P., Shri Shiv Prasad Shukla presently holding the
portfolio of Minister for Rural
Development and former Law Minister, U.P, and Sri R. P. Goel, the present Advocate General of U.P.
3. Sri Pandey contended that since the Ministers are subordinate to the Chief Minister, the petitioner had represented to the Chief Minister for removal of respondent Nos. 7 and 8, the two Ministers of the Cabinet of the U.P. Government and had also requested that all appointments of Government Counsel be set aside and he be appointed in the light of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India under Articles 256 and 257(1) of the Constitution of India. On the query to explain the executive powers of the Union of India, the petitioner in person conceded that he is not aware about the said powers. The petitioner has further submitted that in the light of his arguments, the constitutional machinery in the State of U.P. has failed and, therefore, under Articles 356 and 365 of Constitution of India, a direction be issued to dismiss the State Government and to impose the President Rule.
4. Learned Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that there is prescribed procedure for appointment of Government Advocate under L. R. Manual and while making appointment for the post of Government Advocate, the prescribed procedure was adopted. The views of Advocate General were also taken while considering the name of the petitioner along with other persons. It is also pointed out by learned Chief Standing Counsel that the petitioner is in a habit of making wild allegations and using such language which otherwise is not expected from a member of the bar. In this connection, he has referred to the allegations made by the petitioner in (i) Writ Petition No. 4953 (MB) of 1999, Ashok Pandey v. Chief Minister of U.P. dismissed on 11.9.2000, (ii) Writ Petition No. 139 (MB) of 2000, Ashok Pandey v. Hon’ble Prime Minister of
India disposed of on 1.12.2001 and (iii) Writ Petition No. 2380 (MB) of 2000, Ashok Pandey v. Prime Minister of India dismissed on 21.5.2001.
5. After hearing the parties, we find that there is a procedure prescribed for appointment of Government Advocate as provided in the L.R. Manual which is as under :
“4.01. Number of Government Advocates.–There shall be one Government Advocate for the High Court at Allahabad and another for its Lucknow Bench ; and such number of Additional Government Advocates, Deputy Government Advocates and Assistant Government Advocates at Allahabad and Lucknow as the Government may, from time to time appoint.
4.02. Views of Advocate General may be taken.–In making such appointments as aforesaid, the Government may, if considered necessary, take into consideration the views of the Advocate General or the Chief Justice or any other Judges of the High Court or of any Committee that may be constituted for the purpose. All such appointment shall be notified in the Official Gazette.”
6. We further find that Sri Anadi Banerjee whose appointment order is under challenge was earlier working as the Additional Government Advocate for the last several years and his name was considered in accordance with law and views of Advocate General were also taken into consideration before finalising the name of Sri Anadi Banerjee. The petitioner could not point out any illegality either in his petition or in his arguments regarding the appointment of Sri Anadi Banerjee. It appears that he has agitated the matter due to the fact that he has not been appointed as Government Advocate. We also feel that the outburst of the petitioner against the two Ministers, learned Advocate General and the system is due to appointment of Sri Anadi Banerjee as Government Advocate, the post on
which the petitioner was aspiring. In the process, the petitioner has even made incorrect statement that there is no procedure for appointment of Government Advocate.
7. During the course of arguments, a specific query was made from the petitioner that how a direction can be issued for removal of the two Ministers as prayed by the petitioner. It was replied by the petitioner that the Courts have ample power and wide jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, therefore, the Court can go to this extent. The petitioner failed to substantiate his argument on this issue. Further, we find that the Ministers are appointed by His Excellency the Governor on the advice of the Chief Minister and the Constitution of India does not prescribe any provision for removal of the Minister from his office. It is at the discretion of the Chief Minister. In the case of Maharshi Avadhesh v. State of U.P., AIR 1991 All 52, this Court has already held as under :
“The power to remove a Minister from office is entirely discretionary and is not regulated by any constitutional or statutory provision. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution issues a writ of mandamus to command the executive authority to act in accordance with statutory provisions. This Court does not issue a writ of mandamus or direction of like nature to regulate exercise of mere discretion. Accordingly, writ of the nature prayed for by the petitioner in respect of Sri Mufti Mohammad Syed also cannot be issued.”
8. The petitioner failed to explain the executive powers of Union of India under Articles 256 and 257(1). It is submitted by him that he is not aware of the executive powers of the Union of India. It appears that the petitioner is harping for various directions to be issued including dismissal of the State Government without taking substantial stand. The reason is none else but the obvious one that the petitioner was not
appointed as Government Advocate and he found that the entire machinery of the State Government has failed. The petitioner is a practising advocate and the Office of the Government Advocate is a responsible office. We restrain ourselves to make any observation with regard to the merit of the petitioner. However, the petitioner failed to restrain himself while making wild allegations against the respondents. He also did not prepare his brief in the way he should have. It appears that due to vengeance but in a lighter manner, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. We fail to understand that why the petitioner had taken his bio-data along with him when he went to request the Hon’ble Prime Minister for inviting to attend the seminar to be organised by the ‘Global Human Rights Organisation’, a seminar which according to the petitioner could not be held. Such an action on the part of the petitioner raises eye brow, Whether petitioner wanted to solicit his office? We further failed to understand that why after the note of Hon’ble the Prime Minister, the petitioner had made endorsement thereon as referred to herein above and instead of handing over the said document to the Prime Minister’s office to be sent to the U.P. Government, why he had brought the same along with him to be handed over to the Law Minister, U.P.
9. From a perusal of the record placed before this Court we find that since there is only one post of Government Advocate at the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court and Sri Anadi Banerjee was found suitable for the said post, was appointed as Government Advocate which means that the merit has prevailed. It is a good sign. However, we find that the petitioner could not digest the said appointment and filed this writ petition without using any constrain and responsibility as a member of the bar. The petitioner has prayed for removal of the Ministers and for the dismissal of the State Government but the petitioner could not address this Court on the provisions of Articles 356 and 365 of the Constitution of India. As a member of
the bar and a practising advocate, he should have made more efforts and in the preparation he even could have consulted his colleagues on the subject but the petitioner appeared in person and messed up the whole matter. He could not reply the queries made by the Court with regard to the constitutional provisions. He could not substantiate even his own arguments.
10. In the case of Bar Council, Maharashtra v. M. V. Dabholkar, AIR 1976 SC 242, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the matter of misconduct of a lawyer, has observed as under:
“The high moral tone and the considerable public service the bar is associated with and its key role in the developmental and dispute-processing activities and, above all, in the building up of a just society and constitutional order has earned for it a monopoly to practise law and an autonomy to regulate its own internal discipline. This heavy public trust should not be forfeited by legalising or licensing fights for briefs, affrays in the rush towards clients, undercutting and wrangling among members.
Lest there should be lingering doubts, we hold that the canons of ethics and propriety for the legal profession totally taboo conduct by way of soliciting, advertising, scrambling and other obnoxious practices, subtle or clumsy, for betterment of legal business. Law is no trade, briefs no merchandise and so the leaven of commercial competition or procurement should not vulgarise the legal profession.”
11. We wish that the petitioner should have taken care of his responsibilities and professional conduct and should have acted according to the properties demanded from a practising member of the bar.
12. We are of the considered opinion that the appointment of Sri Anadi Banerjee does not suffer from any illegality and no direction can be
issued for removal of the two Ministers, opposite party Nos. 7 and 8. The petitioner failed to show that Sri R. P. Goel was working as Advocate General of U.P. without any authority of law. A perusal of the record shows that Sri R. P. Goel was appointed as Advocate General on the recommendation of the Chief Minister with the consultation and recommendation of the Cabinet of Ministers of U.P. Government. We are of the further opinion that this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot pass any order for removal of the two Ministers and further no direction can be issued for dismissing the State Government as prayed.
13. The writ petition is totally misconceived and no interference is warranted. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.