A Division Bench of the Madras High Court comprising Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice P. D. Audikesavalu has dismissed the petition seeking directions from the Court to quash the notification issued by the State Government of Tamil Nadu for appointing two Additional Advocate Generals.
The Court dismissed the Petition and held that,
“it was an uninformed petition in that the petitioner was not even aware as to which notification applied to the matter as the notification sought to be assailed had been amended. It was irresponsible on the part of the petitioner to approach this court with public interest litigation by relying on an outdated notification.”
Factual Background
The petition had challenged a notification of the Tamil Nadu Government appointing Senior Advocate V Krishnamurthy and Advocate Amit Anand Tiwari as AAGs of Tamil Nadu to represent the State before the Supreme Court and contends that the notification is unconstitutional.
Therefore, Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the impugned order bearing G.O. (Ms.) No.312 dated 06.08.2021 passed by the respondent and consequently quash the same as unconstitutional, arbitrary, and contrary to the settled principles of law.
Court Reasoning & Judgment
The Court had declined to receive this so-called public interest litigation on a previous date and had requested the petitioner to consider, upon consultation with senior members of the Bar, as to whether the seemingly trivial matter had to be pursued. Such a request was not made because the court was shy of dismissing or not receiving an undeserving petition but to ensure that a sense of harmony prevailed and there was no discord as to who ought to represent the State, irrespective of whichever government may be in power.
The Court then perused the PIL and expressed that,
“it was an uninformed petition in that the petitioner was not even aware as to which notification applied to the matter as the notification sought to be assailed had been amended. It was irresponsible on the part of the petitioner to approach this court with public interest litigation by relying on an outdated notification.”
Then, the Court reviewed the Petitioner’s contention that there is a distinction between an order made in the name of the Governor and an order made on the authority of the Governor.
The Court expounded on this contention that,
“In the constitutional scheme of things, the role of the Governor is limited in his executive functioning. There are only a few subjects that the Governor of a State has exclusive authority to decide on his own, in terms of the Constitution.”
The Court held that,
“There is no basis to the underlying submission of the petitioner that the government of the day may not have the authority to appoint any Additional Advocate General or any other person to represent it in a court of law in any matter or in any manner that the government may choose to do. Further, when an authority has the jurisdiction to pronounce on any aspect, the mere reference to a wrong source or an erroneous provision would have no bearing on the power of the functionary to carry out the relevant action.”
Therefore, the Court disposed of the petition and imposed a cost on it. There is no merit in the petition and it may have been better if the petition had not been pressed.
Case Details
Case:- W.P.No.17696 of 2021
Petitioner:- H.Rajaram
Respondent:- The Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
Counsel for the Petition - Mr. Nithyaesh Natraj
Counsel for the Respondent - Mr. R. Shunmugasundaram
Judge: Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice P. D. Audikesavalu
Read Order@LatestLaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source : https://www.alisonslawavenues.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/advocate-robes.jpg
