'Based On Speculation, Tarnishes Reputation': AP High Court Junks Lawyer's Plea Accusing AG Of Corrupt Practice In Appointment Of Standing Counsel

Andhra Pradesh High Court has expressed strong displeasure over an Advocate's PIL seeking removal of a Standing Counsel and a consequential CBI inquiry into the appointments made on the recommendation of the Advocate General alleging 'corrupt practices for personal gains'.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice R. Raghunandan Rao said the allegations are merely speculative and have the effect of tarnishing the image and reputation of the Advocate General and the Standing Counsel in question. It also deprecated the abuse of PIL jurisdiction to settle personal scores.

The petitioner, who appeared as a party in person, is an advocate by profession and challenged the extension of Standing Counsel of Municipalities on the ground that it was against the Andhra Pradesh Law Officers Appointment and Conditions of Service Instructions, 2000 and guidelines of the Apex Court in State of Punjab vs. Beijeshwar Singh Chahal.

The petitioner consequently prayed that a CBI investigation be launched into the appointments made on the recommendations of the Advocate General.

The Petitioner had raised allegations against the competence of the Standing Counsel in question and brought to the notice of the Court that a similar writ petition was filed against the Standing Counsel in 2019 by another practicing advocate. He alleged that the Petitioner-advocate in the 2019 Writ was then appointed as a Standing Counsel and the case was dismissed for non-prosecution.

The petitioner alleged a quid pro quo situation between the Advocate General and the petitioner/advocate in the 2019 writ stating that the Advocate General had a personal interest in forwarding the name of the standing counsel in question.

The petitioner during the course of the hearing admitted that he had been appointed as a law office for the State and then removed, when the present Advocate General was in the helm of things.

"Interestingly, we cannot help but notice that the petitioner has not challenged the appointment of the counsel who is alleged to be a beneficiary by filing W.P.No.20349 of 2019, in the present petition, neither has he been made as a party respondent in the present case. It appears that the present petition has been filed not on account of general concern for the public, but somehow to settle scores with respondent No.4 (Advocate General), against whom the petitioner a C.B.I. inquiry merely on the ground that he has been instrumental in making recommendation for extension of tenure of respondent No.5 (SC in question) as a Law Officer for the Municipalities and Municipal Corporations in the High Court," the Bench regarded.

It was noted that although he alleged that the Standing Counsel had been appointed for 4 consecutive terms, he filed the Government Orders of only two appointments.

"Allegations that respondent No.5 was conducting "broker activities" in the High Court are totally bereft of any material on Needless to say that the allegations made against both the No.4 as also respondent No.5 have the effect of severely tarnishing their image and reputation. This obviously appears to be out of hurt, which the petitioner suffered on account of his term having been curtailed during the tenure of respondent No.4, who was at the helm of affairs at that time."

While dismissing the petition, the Bench refrained from imposing cost on the petitioner considering that he is a practicing advocate.

Counsel for petitioner: Gundala Siva Prasad Reddy ( party in person)

Counsel for respondents: GP for Law and Administration and GP for GAD