Judgment : 1. Petitioner, who is a practicing Advocate, has come up with this Writ Petition seeking issue of a Writ of Quo Warranto and to direct the Respondents to show cause under what authority the Fourth Respondent is functioning as the Government Advocate (Criminal Side) of Madras High Court. 2. Heard Mr. Manikandan Vathan Chettiar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and P.S. Raman, learned Advocate General, appearing on behalf of Respondents 1 and 2 and being assisted by R. Anitha, learned Additional Government Pleader. 3. The sum and substance of the grievance of the Petitioner as reflected in the affidavit in support of this Writ Petition is that in a few Criminal Original Petitions filed either on behalf of the Petitioner or by the Petitioner on behalf of her clients, the Fourth Respondent took notice for the prosecution and made misrepresentations. Thereafter, when the truth got exposed, Tamil Nadu Information Commission imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/-on the Deputy Commission of Police and that in order to avoid the consequence of such a penalty, the police started harassing the Petitioner and prevented her from discharging the duties of an Advocate towards her clients. 4. The authority of the Fourth Respondent to hold the post of Government Advocate (Criminal Side) is challenged on a short legal ground that such appointment did not go through the consultative process as envisaged under Section 24(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code) and that therefore, the Fourth Respondent cannot hold office. 5. So far as the said contention is concerned, it is seen that even admittedly, the Fourth Respondent is only a Government Advocate (Criminal Side) and he was not appointed either as Public Prosecutor or as Additional or Assistant Public Prosecutor. Section 24(1) of the Code contemplates appointment of one Public Prosecutor and one or more Additional Public Prosecutor for the High Court. The Appointment has to be made after consultation with the High Court. The words ‘High Court’ signify the Full Court and consequently, the appointment of Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutors should actually go through the consultative process prescribed by Section 24(1) of the Code. The Appointment has to be made after consultation with the High Court. The words ‘High Court’ signify the Full Court and consequently, the appointment of Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutors should actually go through the consultative process prescribed by Section 24(1) of the Code. Section 24(1) of the Code does not stipulate that the appointment of a Government Advocate (Criminal Side) should also go through the same consultative process as prescribed by Section 24(1) of the Code in the case of Public Prosecutor of Additional Public Prosecutors. Therefore, the contention that the process was not carried out is thoroughly misconceived. 6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner next contended that the Code does not contemplate the appointment of any person other than Public Prosecutor of Additional Public Prosecutors and that therefore, there is no scope for appointment of a Government Advocate to represent the State on the Criminal Side. 7. However, such a contention cannot be allowed to be raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, in view of the fact that Writ Petition seeking issuance of a Writ of Quo Warranto is filed specifically against the Fourth Respondent and not on ground Principles questioning the appointment of Government Advocates in general. In any event, if such a challenge is made, it cannot hold water, as there is no prohibition either in the Code or in any other law for the appointment of any person other than a Public Prosecutor or Additional public Prosecutors. 8. Even the Constitution of India contemplates only the appointment of one Advocate General under Article 165. But, there is no bar for the appointment of Additional Advocates General. 9. In the case on hand, the Fourth Respondent had been appointed as a Government Advocate (Criminal Side) by a Government order in G.O. Ms. No. 769, Public (Law Officers) Department, dated 3.7.2008. Therefore, it is clear that the Fourth Respondent does not lack inherent authority to hold the office of the Government Advocate (Criminal Side), as he has been appointed by the Government. 10. It is needless to point out that the relationship between the Government Advocate is one of litigant and his lawyer. Therefore, the Government is free to choose any number of persons as their Counsel to represent them in the Court. 10. It is needless to point out that the relationship between the Government Advocate is one of litigant and his lawyer. Therefore, the Government is free to choose any number of persons as their Counsel to represent them in the Court. In M.T. Khan and others v. Government of A.P., 2004 (2) SCC 267 , the Supreme Court held as follows: “The Government of a State as a litigant can appoint as many lawyers as it likes to defend it. For the said purpose, the state is not prohibited from conferring such designation on such legal practitioners as it may deem fit and proper.” 11. The Fourth Respondent is not alleged to have suffered any disqualification prescribed by any law for holding the post of Government Advocate. His appointment has been validly made by way of a Government Order. The moment it is concluded that there is no inherent lack of authority on the part of the Fourth Respondent to hold the office, it follows as a necessary corollary that no Quo Warranto could be issued. 12. In N.S. Ziauddeen v. Ashok Kumar, 2002 (2) CTC 257 (DB) : PDJ 2002 (2) MLJ 74 , a Division Bench of this Court has clearly held that so long as a person is not an usurper of the office, but appointed by the Competent Authority, he cannot be taken to have no authority to hold the office. In the absence of even a remote allegation in the affidavit that the Fourth Respondent lacks authority to hold such Public Office, the Write Petition cannot be maintained. 13. I would have just stopped with addressing myself to the legal issues, but for the fact that the conduct of the Petitioner as well as her Counsel deserves condemnation. A careful perusal of the affidavit in support of the Writ Petition reveals that the Petitioner originally appeared for a person by name Mr. Gopi, against whom, a Criminal Complaint was lodged by his employer. When an Anticipatory Bail Petition was moved by the Petitioner, the Fourth Respondent appeared as Government Advocate and reported to the Court that there was no Complaint pending against her client. On basis of the repeated assertions so made, the Anticipatory Bail Petition was dismissed. Gopi, against whom, a Criminal Complaint was lodged by his employer. When an Anticipatory Bail Petition was moved by the Petitioner, the Fourth Respondent appeared as Government Advocate and reported to the Court that there was no Complaint pending against her client. On basis of the repeated assertions so made, the Anticipatory Bail Petition was dismissed. According to the Petitioner, she filed an Application under the Right to Information Act thereafter, on which, an admission was made that a wrong statement was made to Court leading to Tamil Nadu Information Commission imposing penalty upon the Deputy Commissioner of Police. 14. If the matter had stopped at that, perhaps the Petitioner’s client would have had justification to initiate appropriate proceedings against the officer, who instructed the Fourth Respondent. But, it did not. On the contrary, the affidavit of the Petitioner proceeds on the footing that Mr. Manikandan Vathan Chettiar – the Counsel for the Petitioner had a Civil case filed against his landlady and her father and his colleague had filed a Complaint against the landlady’s father of the Petitioner’s Counsel. There appears to have been a counter Complaint by the landlady’s father against Mr. Manikandan Vathan Chettiar – the Counsel for the Petitioner and the Police started making enquiries. 15. According to the Petitioner, in the course of an investigation of all those Complaints, the Petitioner had lodged a Complaint against a friend of the landlady’s father of the Petitioner’s Counsel. The affidavit of the Petitioner proceeds further with several totally unconnected matters making allegations against (i) Police Officers; (ii) Landlady’s father of the Petitioner’s Counsel; and (iii) The Counsel, who represented the landlady as well as others, who are on the opposite side. All the averments taken cumulatively into account shows that instead of confining their role as Counsel for the litigants, the Petitioner as well as her Counsel Mr. Manikandan Vathan Chettiar had exceed their brief and become litigants by themselves. 16. It is needless to point out that a Counsel is not supposed to identify himself with a party, but to be an officer of Court. It is highly surprising that Mr. Manikandan Vathan Chettiar appeared as a Counsel for the Petitioner in this case when a lot of references have been made to him and the litigations, into which, he is involved in the very affidavit of the Petitioner in support of the Writ Petition. It is highly surprising that Mr. Manikandan Vathan Chettiar appeared as a Counsel for the Petitioner in this case when a lot of references have been made to him and the litigations, into which, he is involved in the very affidavit of the Petitioner in support of the Writ Petition. The affidavit in support of the Writ Petition shows that there are Civil and Criminal litigations pending between Mr. Manikandan Chettiar and his landlady and her father. When the Petitioner has made a reference to those litigations in the affidavit, it would not have been proper on the part of Mr. Manikandan Vathan Chettiar to enter appearance as a Counsel for the Petitioner. It is true that the Petitioner has no conflict of interest with the Counsel, who represents her. But, the Counsel loses the morel authority to represent a client, whose case itself depends upon the evidence of the very same Counsel. 17. The Bar Council of India has issued Rules titled ‘Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette’ under Section 49(1)(c) of the Advocates Act. Rule 13 of the said Rules states that an Advocate should not accept a brief or appear in a case, in which, he has reason to believe that he will be a witness. Therefore, the appearance of Mr. Manikandan Vathan Chettiar in this case, as a Counsel for the Petitioner, is not in conformity with the Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette stipulated by the Bar Council of India. 18. More over, the manner in which the Petitioner, has repeatedly made a mention of the name of the learned Judge, before whom, the Anticipatory Bail Petition came up several times and the manner in which several allegations are made against several persons, who are not parties to the proceedings, show the Petitioner and her Counsel in poor light. Therefore, I was tempted to dismiss the Writ Petition with costs, but took a lenient view in view of the age of the Petitioner. 19. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the above M.P. is also dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.