S.L. Narayana vs L. Shankar Kumar and Others

M.S. Liberhan, C.J.—The Writ Appeal is preferred against an interim order passed by the learned single Judge confirming the interim order passed earlier.

With the consent of the parties, the appeal and the writ petition are taken up for hearing on merit.

The writ petitioner-appellant, who happens to be an advocate and a Member of the Nagar Panchayat, having failed to persuade the Nagar Panchayat to get the advocates of his choice appointed as the Standing Counsel, has chosen the arena of the High Court to take his political vengeance. It is not fair. Courts cannot be permitted to be the playgrounds for settling the scores of the proceeding in the Nagar Panchayat. The writ petition is not the bona fide act of the petitioner.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that solely on the ground that the Advocates had appeared against the Nagar Panchayat, their names were ignored from consideration for appointment as Standing Counsel.

It is conceded at the Bar that the appointment of a Standing Counsel is neither a public service nor a Government service and that it is an engagement of a lawyer for a particular brief or briefs only subject to the condition that the Standing Counsel so engaged will not accept brief against the Nagar Panchayat. We find no ground to interfere in the discretion of the Nagar Panchayat to select their Standing Counsel according to their choice and faith. We find no ground to interfere in the writ petition. The writ petition and the appeal are dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 1,000/- to be deposited in the A.P. State Legal Services Authority.