A Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed a writ petition challenging the appointment of a Standing Counsel, finding the PIL was filed to settle personal scores rather than genuine public interest, and characterized the allegations as unsupported speculation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY
4^^
ts ii : >
c
a
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR,CHIEF JUSTICE V
AND
HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 2140 OF 2024
Between:
Gundala Siva Prasad Reddy, S/o. Anki Reddy, aged about 38 years, OccAdvocate, C/o. Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates Association, Amaravati.
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus declaringissuanceofG.O.Rt.No. 234, law department, dated 09-09-2022, selection making process and appointment of Respondent No. 5 as Standing Counsel for Municipalities and Municipal Corporations in Andhra Region excluding Nellore and Visakhapatnam in High Court, is illegal, irrational, biased, unjust, arbitrary, abuse of power, clear violation of Article's. 14, 16,19and21ofConstitution of India as well as glaring violation of Rule 7 and8ofAndhraPradeshLaw Officers Appointment and conditions of service Instructions, 2000, G.O.Ms. No. 187, Law (L), dated 06-12-2000 and violation of the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Brijeshwar SinghChahalandanother and consequently set aside the appointment of the RespondentNo 5 as Standing Counsel for Municipalities and Municipal Corporations in Andhra Region excluding Nellore and Visakhapatnam in High Court appointed vide G.O.Rt. No. 234, law department, dated 09-09-2022,andfurtherorderforan inquiry to be conducted by the Respondent No. 6 into the illegal activities committed by the Respondent No. 4 and 5. lA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of G.O.Rt. No. 234, law department, dated 09-09-2022, pending disposal of the above writ petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct Respondent No. 6 to conduct inquiry into the illegal activities committed by the Respondent No. 4 and 5, pending disposal of the above writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner:SRI. Mr.GUNDALA SIVA PRASAD REDDY,PARTY IN PERSON
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR LAW LEGISLATIVEAFFAIRS
Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR GAD
Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI. ADVOCATE GENERAL
Counsel for the Respondents No.4 to 6: —
The Court made the following; ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
&?
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.2140 of 2024
Gimdala Siva Prasad Reddy, S/o Anki Reddy, Aged about 38 years, Occ: Advocate, C/o Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates Association, Amaravati.
... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andfcna Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Law Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati and five others.
...Respondents
Mr. Gundala Siva Prasad Reddy, party-in-person.
Government Pleader for Law &? Legislative Affairs, for respondent No.l.
Government Pleader for GAD, for respondent No.2.
DATE :23.02.2024
PER DHIRAJ SINGH THAK^^
The present petition challenging inter alia appointment of respondent No.5 as Standing Gomisel in the High CourtofAndhra Pradesh, came up before learned single Judge, whovzJe his order, dated 31.01.2024, observed that the petition was intheformofa
2 HCJ a RRR, J W,P.No.2140 of 2024
Public Interest Litigation and accordingly directedthemattertobe posted before an appropriate Bench of this Court. The petitioner appearing in person is an Advocate by profession.
The present petition has been preferred challenging the appointment of respondent No.5 as Standing Counsel for Municipalities and Municipal Corporations in Andhra region (excluding Nellore and Visakhapatnam) in the High Court. The appointment of respondent No.5 is stated to be contrary to provisions of Andhra Pradesh Law Officers Appointment and Conditions of Service Instructions, 2000, and guidehnes of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Brijeshwar Singh ChahalL
It is stated that respondent No.5 is not a regular practitioner at the High Court of A.P. and has not regularly been representing cases in this Court. It is stated that he cannot arguecasesanddoes not have a good track record of exceptional performance,wMch would justify his appointment for a third term. Allegationshave been reiterated regarding his inefficiency. Allegationshave also been levelled against respondent No.5 which have the effect of tarnishing his reputation and integrity. It is furtherstatedthat respondent No.5 was earlier appointed for two terms2004-11as
(2016) 6 see 1
3 HCJ a RRR, J W.P.No.2140 of 2024
Standing Counsel for Municipalities and Municipal Corporationsfor appearance in the Tribiuial. Subsequently, it is stated, he was appointed as Standing Counsel for Municipahties and Municipal Corporations in the Andhra region (excluding Nellore and Visakhapatnam) in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O. Rt.No.201, dated 02.08.2019 and further that his tenure has been extended recently vide G.O.Rt.No.234, dated 09.09.2022. This, according to the petitioner, is impermissible, as he already served for nine years and got another term of appointment for three years. which was thus contrary to the instructions on this subject.
It is stated that the appointment of respondent No.5 as counsel, effected vide G.0.Rt.No.201, dated 02.08.2019, was challenged in W.P. No.20349 of 2019 by an advocate, as a party-in person. It is stated that while the petition was pending adjudication. the said Advocate was appointed as Standing CoimselforAndhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short, ‘APSRTC’) and that subsequently the case was dismissed for non-appearance of the said Advocate. It is stated that this was nothingbutacaseof a quid pro quo. What is further stated in para No. 10 is reproduced hereunder:
10 When the appointment for the third term itself is in utter violation, and disregard of law and was made controversial, his appointment and recommendation for
HCJ a RRR, J W.P.No.2140 of 2024
4
appointment in the very same post for the fourth termare creating suspicion of corrupt practice for personal gains for Respondent No.4. So inquiry has to he conducted onboth Respondents No.4 and 5 by an independent investigating agency like Central Bureau of Investigation (for short C.B.I.) as per Apex Court Judgment in State of West Bengaland others vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and others reported in (2010) 3 SCC 571.”
The petitioner appearing in person, in the hght of the aforementioned facts, would urge that not only the selection process but also the appointment of respondent No.5 was unjust and arbitrary and in clear violation of clause 7 and8oftheAndhra Pradesh Law Officers Appointment and Conditions of Service Instructions, SOOO, framed by the Government and therefore,inthe above circumstances, prayed for setting the operation of G.O.Rt.No.234, dated 09.09.2022, and as also prayed for a mandamus to respondent No.6 the Central Bureau of Investigation to conduct inquiry into the illegal activitiesconducted by respondent Nos.4 and 5.
- During the course of hearing the matter, it was admitted by the petitioner appearing in person that he had been engaged as a Law Officer to appear on behalf of the Government,buthisservices were terminated midway and all this happened while respondent No.4 was at the helm of affairs. It was also not denied by the petitioner that two other petitions have since been filed by him
HCJ a RRR, J W.P.No.2140 of 2024
5
against two other Law Officers appointed hy the State,whichare pending before various Benches.
- While the petitioner has made an assertion in the petitionthat respondent No.5 was appointed as a Standing Counsel for Municipahties and Municipal Corporations for two terms from 2004-11 in the Tribunal, no such material has been placed on record except two G.Os bearing G.O. Rt.No.201, dated 02.08.2019 and G.O.Rt.No.234, dated 09.09.2022, whereby respondentNo.5 was appointed as Standing Counsel to represent Municipahtiesand Municipal Corporations in the High Court. The assertion made in the writ petition that this was the fourth term being enjoyed by the respondent No.5, therefore, does not get any supportfrom the material placed on record.
The petitioner also alleges in the petition that an investigation by the C.B.I. is required, to go into the appointment of respondent No.5 for the fourth time, as. in his personal opinion, suspicions have been created of corrupt practices for personal gains of respondent No.4 on account of some quid pro quo. The quid pro quo is stated to be occasioned on accoun t of appointment of an Advocate as Standing Counsel for APSRTC, who had challengedtheearher appointment of respondent No.5 as such Law Officer.
HCJ a RRR, J W,P.No.2140 of 2024
6
- 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 respondentinthe present case. It appears that the present petition has been filed not on account of any general concern for the public, butsomehowto settle scores with respondent No.4, against whom the petitioner seeks 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 as a Law Officer for the Municipalities and Municipal Corporations in the High Court.
Allegations that respondent No.5 was conducting “broker activities” in the High Court are totally bereft of any material on record. Needless to say that the allegations made againstboththe respondent 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 respondentNo.4who was at the helm of affairs at that time.
- The Apex Court has repeatedly reiterated the need to exercise care and caution while entertaining petitions purportedlyfiledin public interest inasmuch as the forum of public interest is being
7 HCJ & RRR, , W.P.No.2140 of 2024
blatantly abused, by filing petitions with oblique motives. In Kalyaneshwari vs Union of India & Ors^, the Apex Court underhned the importance of care and caution that is required to be exercised while entertaining public interest htigations and held that the same should not become a source of abuse of process of law. It was held that the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that no ugly private malice, vested interest for seeking publicity lurks behind such public interest litigation.
In Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary^, the Apex Court had emphasized that it was only a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL alone would have a locus standi and could approach the Court to wipe out the tears of the poor and needy, suffering from violation of their fundamental rights, but not a person for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration who could maintain such a petition. It was further held that a vexatious petition under the colour of PIL brought before the court for vindicating any personal grievance, deserves to be rejected at the threshold.
In Dattaraj Nathi^i Thaware v. State Of Maharashtra^, it ISi
held as under:
h2011)3SCC 287 Ni992)4 SCC 305 " 2005 (1) see 590
HCJ a RRR, J W.P.No.2140 of 2024
8
“12. Public interest litigation is a weapon which hasto be used with great care and circumspection and thejudiciary has to be extremely caireful to see that behind thebeautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vestedinterest and/or publicity seeking is not lurking. It is to beusedasan effective weapon in the aj’moury of law for deliveringsocial justice to the citizens. The attractive brand nameofpublic interest litigation should not be used for suspiciousproducts of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genmnepublic wrong or pubhc injury and not pubhcity oriented orfo\mded on personal vendetta....
13
HCJ a RRR, . W.P.No.2140 of 2024
9
The aforementioned view was reiterated in Holicow Rctures
Pvt. Ltd. vs. Prem Chandra Mishra &? Others^.
- Testing the facts of the present case on the touchstoneofthe ratio of the aforementioned judgments, it is clear that the petitioner has a personal score to settle in filing the present petition and has not filed the same out of any genuine puhhc interest.Wemust express our displeasure at the way in which the petitioner,who happens to he an Advocate by profession, has levelled serious allegations of ‘corrupt practice for personal gains’ against respondent Nos.4 and 5, which have the effect of tarnishingthe image and reputation of the said respondents based only on ‘speculation and suspicion’. Although the Apex Courthastimeand again said that such a tendency should be curtailed by imposing heavy costs upon petitioners, and in the ordinary course,wewould have imposed costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the petitioner, however, we refrain'from doing so only considering the view that the petitioner appearing in person is an Advocate by profession.
However, we wish to reproduce herein below the observations made by the Apex Court in Dattaraj Nathuji Thawarev.StateOf
^ 2007 (14) see 281
HCJ a RRR, J W.P.No.2140 of 2024
10
Maharaslitra (supra) in paragraph No.20 of the judgmentwherein
it was held:
For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, we, accordingly.
dismiss the writ petition. No order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall standclosed.
Sd/- S.SRINIVAS PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
nm gl
HIGH COURT
DATED:23/02/2024
ORDER
WP.No.2140 of 2024
,vAJ
DISMISSING THE WP
WITHOUT COSTS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging the appointment of a counsel alleging corruption and abuse of power under the guise of public interest litigation.
Whether allegations of corrupt practice created a doubt concerning the appointment of the standing counsel which required investigation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Punjab vs. Brijeshwar Singh Chahal and anotherReferred¶22
State of Punjab vs. Brijeshwar Singh Chahal and another
Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and othersReferred¶58
State of West Bengal and others vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and others reported in (2010) 3 SCC 571
Kalyaneshwari vs Union of India & OrsReferred¶72
Kalyaneshwari vs Union of India & Ors
Janata Dal v. H.S. ChowdharyReferred¶73
Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary
Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State Of MaharashtraReferred¶75
Dattaraj Nathi Thaware v. State Of Maharashtra reported in (2011)3SCC 287 Ni992)4 SCC 305 2005 (1) see 590 · Who else cites this
Holickow Rctures Pvt. Ltd. vs. Prem Chandra Mishra & OthersReferred¶84
Holickow Rctures Pvt. Ltd. vs. Prem Chandra Mishra &? Others
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Gundala Siva Prasad Reddy
The State of Andhra Pradesh
Dhiraj Singh Thakur
R. Raghunandan Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
