MUNDRIKA PRASAD SINHA versus STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [1980] 1 S.C.R. 759 · Decided: 20-09-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

MUNDRIKA PRASAD SINHA 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR 
September 20, 1979 
(V. R. KRISHNA _IYER AND P. N. SH!NGHAL, JJ] 
759 
Advocate-Appointed as Govenunent Pleader to conduct all Govenunent 
cases-Government, if has pawer to appoint Assistant Government 
Pleaders 
<lnd 1vithdraw cases from Government Pleader. 
· The petitioner, who was an Advocate, was authorised by the Government to 
represent it in. all the civil cases in a district court. 
Considering the pendency 
of a large number of Government cases before courts and tribunals the Govern-
ment appointed nine Assistant Government Pleaders during the term of office 
of the petitioner as Government Pleader and asked him to nlake over all the 
land acquisition cases to one of the Assistant Government Pleaders. 
The 
petitioner refused to comply with the Government's instructions and stated 
that he would himself conduct all the cases. The Government, however, stuck 
to it.S stand. 
His writ petition impugning the Government's decision was· dis-
missed by the High Court. 
Dismissing the petition under Art. 136. 
liELD : 1. The definition of Government Pleader contained in s. 2 (7) of 
the Code of Civil Procedure is an inclusive definition which, read along with 
O. 21, rr. 4 and 8(c) clearly yields the inference that Government may have as 
many Government Pleaders as it likes to conduct its cases. The section vests 
no sole control on one Government Pleader over others and the Government is 
perfectly free to put a particular GOvernment Plearler in charge of particular 
cases. Government Pleaders and Assistant Government Pleaders who had been 
appointed according to administrative rules of 
the State 
are 
Goyernment 
Pleaders \Vithin the meaning of the definition in s. 2(7) of the Code. 
Each 
one of them may dopute other lawyers and exercise control over such surro-
gates. l763 G; 764 CJ 
2. The Bihar Rules regarding Government Pleaders, which are purely ad-
miniitrati~e prescriptions and which serve as guidelines and on which no 
legal right can be founded do not help the petitioner. The allocation of work; 
or control inter se is an inl:Crnat arrangement and there is no error in 
the 
behaviour of the Government. [764 F-Gl 
3. When there were several thousand cas~s in the courts in the State and 
hundreds of cases before Tnbunals it was but right that Government did not 
sacrifice the speedy, conduct of case. by not appointing a number of pleaders. 
ft is inconceivable_ how the petitioner would have discharged his duties to the 
court and to the client of this crowd of land acquisition cases was posted jn 
"Several courts more or less at the same time. [765 D~EJ 
:W 
Ramachandran v. A.lagiriswami, A.I.R. 1961 Madras 450, approved. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
[1. Despite the national litigation policy evolved by the All India Law 
H 
Ministers' Conference in 1957 end the recommendation of the Law 
Com-
tnlsSion there is still a pio!iferaticn of government ·case. in courts uninformed 
A 
\ 
760 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1980) 1 S.C.R. 
by such policy. It is important that the State should be a model litigant with 
accent on settlement. Time has come for State Gov~rnments to 
have 
a 
second look, not only at the litigation policy but lawyers' fees rules e_specially 
in mass litigation involving ad valorem calculations in fixing fees in 
land 
acquisition cases. [762 B; 763 CJ 
2. The politicisation of Government Pleadership which is a public office is 
an issue of moment in a developing society controlled by the politics of skill 1 
and enjoying a legal monopoly. 
It is a healthy practice. that the Government 
appoints these lawyers after consultation with the District Judge. Governnlents 
under our Constitution shall not play with law offices on political or other 
impertinent considerations as it may affect the legality of the action and sub~ 
vert the rule of law itself [765 CJ 
' 
C 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
Special Leave Petition (Civil) 
D' 
E 
F 
G 
B 
No. 6056 of 1979. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 12-7-1979 of the 
High Co'urt in C.W.J.C. No. 1618/79. 
P. Govindan Nair and S. K. Sinha for the Petitioner. 
Patna 
L. N. Sinha, Attorney G'neral, U. P. Singh and R. B . . Mahton 
for the Respondent. 
The Order of the Cour was delivered by 
I 
• 
KRISHNA IYER, J. 
An unusual grievance of a Government Plea-
der, the petitioner, 
ventilated in a writ petition, was 
given short 
shrif~ by the High Court in a laconic order, but undaunted by this 
summa,y brevity the pet

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.