Judgment Intelligence
Petition Dismissed- Court
- Rajasthan High Court
- Date of Decision
- 3 December 2024
- Bench
- Justices Shree Chandrashekhar and Rekha Borana
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India — Articles 14, 165, 166, 226; Rajasthan State Litigation Policy, 2018 (Chapter 14); Rajasthan Law and Legal Affairs Department Manual, 1999
The writ petition was dismissed for lack of merit (para 23). Earlier, by order dated 16 October 2024, statements in the petitioner's IA No. 01/2024 had been expunged for intemperate language and unsubstantiated allegations (para 16).
Key holdings
- Administrative instructions in the Rajasthan Manual are not enforceable in a court of law, and mandamus does not lie to enforce instructions without statutory force (paras 10, 13).
- The State’s choice of advocates as Law Officers cannot be challenged unless shown arbitrary, nor on the ground of an appointee’s relationship (para 13).
- Quo warranto does not lie because the posts of Additional Advocate General and other Law Officers are not public posts (para 18).
- Brijeshwar Singh Chahal turned on data about unnecessary appointments; the petitioner produced no such data and pleaded nothing against any appointee (paras 7, 20).
- A writ petition labelled as public interest litigation that rests solely on vague allegations does not call for the exercise of Article 226 powers (paras 16, 21).
Brief Facts
Court's Findings
Legal Principle
Precedents Relied Upon
- State of Punjab & Anr. v. Brijeshwar Singh Chahal & Anr. (2016) 6 SCC 1
Prompted by data showing unnecessary, heavily remunerated appointments of Law Officers in Punjab and Haryana and no credible appointment process; no such data was produced here, and the decision does not question the State’s discretion to appoint Law Officers of its choice.
- State of U.P. & Anr. v. Johri Mal 2004 (4) SCC 714
Engagement of District Government counsel is a professional engagement and not an appointment to a civil post; performance is a matter for the State’s satisfaction; the Legal Remembrancer’s Manual contains executive instructions.
- State of U.P. & Ors. v. Ajay Kumar Sharma (2016) 15 SCC 289
Followed Johri Mal on the appointment of government counsel as the binding precedent.
View all precedents (27)
- Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. (1991) 1 SCC 212
Relied on by the petitioner for Article 14 scrutiny of Government Law Officers’ engagement; Johri Mal had expressed reservations about it.
- Sundeep Kumar Bafna v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2014) 16 SCC 623
A decision may be per incuriam if its ratio cannot be reconciled with an earlier decision of a co-equal or larger Bench; faced with irreconcilable decisions, High Courts should apply the earliest view.
- Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur v. Sitaram 1992 SCC OnLine Raj 36
Division Bench: appointment of an Additional or Associate Advocate General is contemplated and governed by Article 165 of the Constitution.
- Om Prakash Joshi, Advocate v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2001 SCC OnLine Raj 101
The State has every right to engage Law Officers of its own choice and confidence; the writ court will not direct appointment through advertisement or interfere in the engagement of lawyers.
- Hari Singh v. State of Haryana (1993) 3 SCC 114
Courts exercising the same jurisdiction expressing different opinions on identical facts or questions of law leads to judicial anarchy.
- Mahadeolal Kanodia v. The Administrator-General of West Bengal 1960 SCC OnLine SC 47
Judges of coordinate jurisdiction overruling one another’s decisions destroys certainty in the system.
- State of U.P. & Ors. v. U.P. State Law Officers Association & Ors. (1994) 2 SCC 204
The legal profession is service-oriented and the lawyer-client relationship is one of trust and confidence; the client may engage or leave a lawyer for personal reasons.
- J.R. Raghupathy, etc. v. State of A.P. & Ors. (1988) 4 SCC 364
Guidelines without statutory force are executive instructions; mandamus does not lie to enforce departmental manuals or instructions, which give no legal right.
- Mrs. Veena Sethi v. State of Bihar & Ors. (1982) 2 SCC 583
The Court must uphold the basic human rights of the poor and ignorant weaker sections of society.
- Ramsharan Autyanuprasi & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. 1989 Supp (1) SCC 251
Public interest litigation is for making basic human rights meaningful to the deprived and vulnerable.
- S.P. Gupta & Anr. v. Union of India 1981 Supp SCC 87
A court entertaining public interest litigation must examine that the petitioner acts bona fide and not for personal, political or oblique considerations.
- State of Himachal Pradesh v. A Parent of a Student of Medical College, Simla & Ors. (1985) 3 SCC 169
The writ court should intervene only when the executive is remiss in discharging its obligations under law or the Constitution.
- Dr. Buddhi Kota Subbarao v. Mr. K. Parasaran & Ors. (1996) 5 SCC 530
Cited (footnote) for the proposition that easy access to justice should not be misused to file misconceived and frivolous petitions.
- Dr. B. Singh v. Union of India & Ors. (2004) 3 SCC 363
Public interest litigation must involve real and genuine public interest, not publicity or private interest; claims are judged by the materials produced, not the petitioner’s claimed credentials.
- Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India (2018) 6 SCC 72
Article 226 jurisdiction has been misused by persons with personal agendas or seeking publicity.
- State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors. (2010) 3 SCC 402
The sanctity of the writ jurisdiction must be protected and effective steps taken to prevent its abuse.
- S.P. Anand, Indore v. H.D. Deve Gowda & Ors. (1996) 6 SCC 734
The locus standi rule is waived only when the proceedings are in the competent hands of a person with genuine concern for public interest.
- Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed & Ors. (1976) 1 SCC 671
A mere busybody or meddlesome interloper lacks standing to sue; the present case was held to be of a similar kind.
- Bharti Reddy v. State of Karnataka (2018) 6 SCC 162
A writ of quo warranto cannot rest on assumptions or speculation; the circumstances in which it lies.
- University of Mysore & Anr. v. C.D. Govinda Rao & Anr. AIR 1965 SC 491
Suitability as assessed by the State Government is not amenable to quo warranto proceedings.
- Union of India v. Naveen Jindal & Anr. 2004 (2) SCC 510
The Flag Code is not law within the meaning of Article 13 of the Constitution.
- State of U.P. v. Ramesh Chandra Sharma (1995) 6 SCC 527
Appointment of a legal practitioner as District Government counsel is only a professional engagement.
- Dwarka Prasad Agarwal (D) By Lrs. & Anr. v. B.D. Agarwal & Ors. (2003) 6 SCC 230
In judicial review the High Court is concerned with illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety.
- Metropolis Theatre Co. v. City of Chicago 228 U.S. 61 (1913)
Mere errors of Government are not subject to judicial review; only palpably arbitrary exercises may be declared void (observations of Justice McKenna).
