Civil Writ Petition No.13711 of 2007 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.13711 of 2007 Date of decision: September 10, 2008. Paramjit Singh Goraya ...Petitioner(s) v. Union of India & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Petitioner in person. Shri Onkar Singh Batalvi, Advocate, for UOI, respondent No.1. Shri Amol Rattan Singh, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondent No.2. Shri Rameshwar Malik, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for respondent No.3. Shri Anupam Gupta, Senior Standing Counsel, for UT Chandigarh for respondents No.4. ORDER T.S. Thakur, CJ – (Oral) Appointment of Public Prosecutors is regulated by Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It, inter-alia, provides for consultation by the Central Government or the State Government, as the Civil Writ Petition No.13711 of 2007 -: 2 :- case may be, with the High Court before making appointment of a Public Prosecutor or an Additional Public Prosecutor for the High Court. The petitioner's grievance in the present writ petition filed in public interest is that the provisions of Section 24 are not complied with by the States of Punjab and Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh. In response to a notice issued by this Court, the States of Punjab and Haryana have filed counter affidavits denying the allegation that they have been appointing Public Prosecutors and Additional Public Prosecutors without consulting the High Court. Mr. Malik, appearing for the Government of Haryana, submits that except in one case, where on account of some inadvertence the High Court could not be consulted before making the appointments, all other appointments of Public Prosecutors and Additional Public Prosecutors in the High Court have been made after consultation with the High Court. That is true even in regard to the Punjab Government who has made a statement that the appointments are made only after consulting the High Court. In so far as the U.T. Chandigarh is concerned, Mr. Anupam Gupta, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Administration, submits that although one Public Prosecutor and nine Additional Public Prosecutors were appointed by the U.T. Administration in 2006 and 2008, yet on account of some inadvertence, these appointments were made without consulting the High Court. He submitted that these appointments have been intimated to the High Court in terms of communications addressed to the Registrar General of this Court. On instructions, he further submits that the communications could be treated as requests for consultation with the High Court in the matter post-facto. He submits, on Civil Writ Petition No.13711 of 2007 -: 3 :- instructions, that in case the High Court has any objection to any of the appointments made between 2006 and 2008, the U.T. Administration would look into the matter and pass appropriate orders. In that view of the matter, therefore, we consider it unnecessary to keep the present proceedings pending on our board. Since appointments of Public Prosecutors and Additional Public Prosecutors are being made by the concerned States after consulting the High Court, there is no occasion for us to issue any further direction in the matter. In so far as the U.T. of Chandigarh is concerned, the communications received from it from time to time in regard to appointments made, shall be placed before the Full Court and be treated as a request for consultation of the High Court in relation to such appointments. Needless to say that in case the Full Court is of the view that any of the appointments made by the U.T. Administration deserves to be reviewed, the U.T. Administration would look into the matter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the above directions leaving the parties to bear their own costs. [ T.S. Thakur ] Chief Justice September 10, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge