IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No. 14359 of 2010 ========================================== Arvind Kumar Sharma s/o Awadh Kishore Prasad Sharma, r/o Flat No.501(W) Keshav Place, Bailey Road, Khajpura, P.S. Shastri Nagar, Patna …………… Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. The Law Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The Secretary to the Hon’ble Governor, Raj Bhawan, Bihar, Patna 4. The Principal secretary, Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 5. Prashant Kumar Shahi s/o not know, Advocate General, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, r/o Shahi Building Shahi Lane, S.P.Verma Road, Patna 6. Lalit Kishore s/o not know Additional Advocate General, Govt. of Bihar, Patnar/o Ram Niwas Behind Sri Ram Palace Apartment, Boring Road, Patna ………….. Respondents =================================================== APPEARANCE For the Petitioner : Mr. Dinu Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. S.K.Ghosh, AAG –II Mr. Vikash Kumar, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Advocates ================================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2 31/8/2010 This petition is filed by Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, a practising advocate in this court, in public interest. The petition is filed against the Advocate General, the Additional Advocate General and the other Law Officers of the Government. It is the complaint of the petitioner that 2 though those Law Officers are paid remuneration by the State Government to represent the State Government in the High Court, they do accept brief from other Government Corporations and Boards which are ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and also charge fees. Such action of the learned Law Officers in accepting the brief from Government Corporations and Boards and charging fees is contrary to the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and is misappropriation of the tax payers’ money. The petition is thoroughly misconceived. There cannot be any direction against any advocate accepting a brief from a client and charging fees. In case there is a complaint of professional misconduct the appropriate forum to complain would be the Bar Council. We see no substance in the complaint made by the petitioner. To us, it appears that the petition is actuated by some personal vendetta. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. The petitioner will pay cost of Rs.5000/-. The amount of cost will be deposited in the Registry of this court within one week from today. The compliance will be reported to the court. Neyaz/ ( R. M. Doshit,CJ.) (Jyoti Saran, J.) 3