IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11511 of 2009 Between: K.John Joseph, S/o. K.V.John, R/o. Venkataratnapuram, Behind, Municipal Office, Kakinada, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Secretary, Law, Legislative Affairs & Justice Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, East Godavri District at Kakinada. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.K.KISHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAW & LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS The Court made the following : O R D E R: This Writ Petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to set aside Memorandum dated 16-08-2008, whereby respondent No.1 directed respondent No.2 to submit a panel of Advocates for appointment of Standing Counsel for Kakinada Municipal Corporation. The petitioner is a practicing Advocate of Kakinada Bar Association. The Kakinada Municipal Corporation passed a resolution on 17-06-2008, forwarding a panel of five Advocates to respondent No.1 for appointment as Standing Counsel. The petitioner’s name was included at Serial No.4 in the said panel. However on 16-08-2008, respondent No.1, through its Law Secretary, requested the District Collector, East Godavari, to send a panel of eligible Advocates, belonging to BC, OC, SC, ST and women categories, for appointment as a Standing Counsel in local Courts for Kakinada Municipal Corporation. This communication is questioned by the petitioner in this Writ Petition. At the hearing, the only ground, which is urged by Sri A.K.Kishore Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that, the Kakinada Municipal Corporation having already sent a panel of Advocates, respondent No.1 is not justified in ignoring the same and calling for a fresh panel. I have carefully considered this submission and I find no merit therein. The Andhra Pradesh Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Instructions, 2000 notified in G.O.Ms.No.187 dated 06-12-2000 was amended by G.O.RT.No.168, dated 24-01-2007, whereby the power to appoint Law Officers, which was earlier vested in the local bodies and other State Public Undertakings, was taken away, and vested in the Government. It is relevant to reproduce the said amendment hereunder. AMENDMENT In Instruction 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of service) Instructions, 2000, issued in g.O.Ms.No.187, Law, dated 6th December, 2000, - i) for sub-instruction (1) the following shall be substituted, namely, - “(1) Government shall appoint such number of Law Officers and Standing Counsels on behalf of the State, State Public Undertakings, Local Authorities, Universities, charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments, other Instrumentalities of the State and Apex Cooperative Bodies, as the case may be, to conduct cases before various courts and Tribunals as they may consider necessary.” ii) In sub-instruction (2) (a) clause (a) shall be omitted. (b) in clause (b), the words “ after obtaining the prior approval of the Government” shall be omitted. From the date of the said amendment coming into force, it is only the Government, which is empowered to appoint the Standing Counsel. Therefore, the Kakinada Municipal Corporation has no power to send a panel of Advocates for being appointed as a Standing Counsel and consequently, the impugned communication requisitioning panel of names from the District Collector, East Godavari does not suffer from any illegality. For the abovementioned reasons, I find no merit in the Writ Petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.14816 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 12th June, 2009 lur