IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No. 14359 of 2010
==========================================
Arvind Kumar Sharma s/o Awadh Kishore Prasad Sharma, r/o Flat
No.501(W) Keshav Place, Bailey Road, Khajpura, P.S. Shastri Nagar,
Patna ............... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna
2. The Law Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
3. The Secretary to the Hon'ble Governor, Raj Bhawan, Bihar, Patna
4. The Principal secretary, Personnel & Administrative Reforms
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
5. Prashant Kumar Shahi s/o not know, Advocate General, Govt. of
Bihar, Patna, r/o Shahi Building Shahi Lane, S.P.Verma Road,
Patna
6. Lalit Kishore s/o not know Additional Advocate General, Govt. of
Bihar, Patnar/o Ram Niwas Behind Sri Ram Palace Apartment,
Boring Road, Patna .............. Respondents
===================================================
APPEARANCE
For the Petitioner : Mr. Dinu Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. S.K.Ghosh, AAG -II
Mr. Vikash Kumar,
Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh,
Advocates
=================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
2 31/8/2010 This petition is filed by Mr. Arvind Kumar
Sharma, a practising advocate in this court, in public
interest. The petition is filed against the Advocate
General, the Additional Advocate General and the other
Law Officers of the Government.
It is the complaint of the petitioner that
2
though those Law Officers are paid remuneration by
the State Government to represent the State Government
in the High Court, they do accept brief from other
Government Corporations and Boards which are
‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the
Constitution and also charge fees. Such action of the
learned Law Officers in accepting the brief from
Government Corporations and Boards and charging fees
is contrary to the provisions of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 and is misappropriation of the tax
payers’ money.
The petition is thoroughly misconceived.
There cannot be any direction against any advocate
accepting a brief from a client and charging fees. In case
there is a complaint of professional misconduct the
appropriate forum to complain would be the Bar
Council.
We see no substance in the complaint made by
the petitioner. To us, it appears that the petition is
actuated by some personal vendetta.
The petition is, accordingly, dismissed in
limine. The petitioner will pay cost of Rs.5000/-. The
amount of cost will be deposited in the Registry of this
court within one week from today. The compliance
will be reported to the court.
( R. M. Doshit,CJ.)
(Jyoti Saran, J.)
Neyaz/
3