Judgment :- 1. This writ petition is filed by the Trade Union representing daily wage workers in the 3rd respondent Cooperative Sugar Mills, with registration No.STA-309/1984. The prayer in this writ petition is for a direction to the second respondent (Commissioner of Sugars, Chennai) to consider the representation of the petitioner union, dated 17.08.2012 to fill up all existing vacancies or the future vacancies in the third respondent sugar mills by appointing all eligible and qualified members of the union as per the list attached instead of filling up 32 vacancies only as notified on 16.8.2012 and to pass appropriate orders. 2. Apart from the second respondent Commissioner of Sugars, the petitioner cited the Government of Tamil Nadu as the first respondent and the management of Kallakurichi Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd., Unit-I, represented by its Special Officer as the third respondent in this writ petition. As can be seen, there was no relief claimed against the third respondent. But, however, they were shown as a pro forma party as any order to be passed by the second respondent, who is not only the Commissioner of Sugars, but the Registrar of Cooperative Sugars in respect of Sugar Mills, will have a bearing on their future course of action. 3. When this writ petition came up on 23.8.2012, the Additional Government Pleader, who was appointed for Cooperative Department took notice, not only for official respondents, but also for the third respondent. Subsequently, the matter was adjourned on 14.09.2012, 20.09.2012 and 27.09.2012. In none of the adjournments, the learned Additional Government Pleader got any instructions from the second respondent. When this court wanted to order notice to the third respondent as they are an autonomous society, though under the control of the Special Officer at present, the learned Additional Government Pleader stated that he also appears for the society as their standing counsel. When asked to file vakalath, he sought for time. Apparently, in the meanwhile, they have sent a communication to the third respondent stating that the court had directed them to get instructions and the matter was adjourned. So they wanted the concerned officials to meet the Additional Government Pleader. He also stated that the High Court had directed him to appear on their behalf and hence he has enclosed the vakalath and also demanded them to sent a specified amount towards legal fees and filing expenses. 4. So they wanted the concerned officials to meet the Additional Government Pleader. He also stated that the High Court had directed him to appear on their behalf and hence he has enclosed the vakalath and also demanded them to sent a specified amount towards legal fees and filing expenses. 4. In the meanwhile, the third respondent mill wrote a letter to the learned Additional Government Pleader stating that there was no case to consider the demand of the workmen and that the posts will have to be filled up with the persons who are seeking compassionate appointments and that the balance posts can be filled up on the basis of the educational qualifications and seniority after getting orders from the Commissioner of Sugars. However, since the main relief claimed is only against the second respondent Commissioner of Sugars, there is no difficulty in disposing of the writ petition with a direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 17.08.2012, a copy of which was enclosed in pages 33 to 35 of the typed set in accordance with law and after hearing both sides. The said representation shall be disposed of within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order by the second respondent and the result shall be communicated to the petitioner. 5. However, before parting with this case, one disquieting factor that came to the notice of this court is that the Government Pleaders, Additional Government Pleaders, Special Government Pleaders, Government Advocates, who are normally present in court, often volunteers to take notice not only for the Government departments, for which they have been nominated, but also for private parties, like Cooperative societies, village panchayats and panchayat union councils. Some time even for transport corporations, etc. But after taking notice voluntarily, they write to the parties (as was done in this case) as if the court had directed them to appear for those autonomous / corporate bodies. Many times, the autonomous bodies, which are corporate identities are in helpless situation. Believing the communication sent by the Government Pleaders in the letterhead of the Government Pleaders Office, they are forced to engage them even though they may be having their own standing counsels, who are advising them constantly. Many times, the autonomous bodies, which are corporate identities are in helpless situation. Believing the communication sent by the Government Pleaders in the letterhead of the Government Pleaders Office, they are forced to engage them even though they may be having their own standing counsels, who are advising them constantly. This kind of soliciting briefs by the Government Pleaders who are constantly present before the court, is not only unhealthy, but also contrary to the professional ethics framed by the Bar Council of India, of which they were also bound. 6. In this case, if vakalath is not returned along with the fees specified, there will be hardly any representation on their behalf. Many times, after change of Governments, when new Government Pleaders take charge, there is total lack of interest in such briefs, for which originally they had volunteered to appear. The court also comes across unnecessary disputes as to who should really represent such autonomous bodies. Therefore, this court directed the learned Additional Government Pleader to justify his appearance for a private body as in the case of the third respondent herein. The learned Additional Government Pleader produced a copy of the Government order in G.O.Ms.No.414, Public (Law Officers) Department, dated 03.05.2012, wherein he was appointed as an Additional Government Pleader (Cooperatives) in respect of the Principal Bench. He also produced a copy of the communication sent by the Commissioner of Sugars, Chennai addressed to all Chief Executives of Cooperative Sugar Mills, stating that he has been nominated as a Special Counsel for Cooperative Sugar Mills in Tamil Nadu and that the Chief Executives were requested to entrust all cases to him, vide a communication dated 19.7.2012. It is not clear as to where the Commissioner of Sugars (Director of Sugar) has power to issue such a circular when he does not have any specific power under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 to do so. On the other hand, in respect of Cooperative Sugar mills, rules have been framed under Chapter 18 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules. Rule 189 (3), the Managing Director (Special Officer) can institute or defend any suit or other legal proceedings on behalf of the sugar mill and he has to keep the Board informed. On the other hand, in respect of Cooperative Sugar mills, rules have been framed under Chapter 18 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules. Rule 189 (3), the Managing Director (Special Officer) can institute or defend any suit or other legal proceedings on behalf of the sugar mill and he has to keep the Board informed. There are no other rules which empower the Commissioner of Sugars, who is also a Registrar of Cooperative Sugars, to give any direction with reference to the engagement of counsels by the societies. The power to give direction vests with the Registrar under Section 181 also do not enable him to give any such direction. 7. A Full Bench of this Court inK.Marappan Vs. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Namakkal Circle, Namakkal-636 001 and anotherreported in 2006 (4) CTC 689 held that the cooperative societies are not State or instrumentalities of the Government and even if they were managed by the Special Officers and they continue to be private bodies. Therefore, each society is an autonomous body and they are entitled to defend or institute proceedings which include appointment of counsels of their own choice. Such autonomous is very much necessary because many times, the society may want to challenge an action of the officers of the department including the Registrar. At times the action may include the action of the Government. In such circumstances, the Government Pleaders who are asked to defend the department, cannot appear for a society. In the absence of any enabling power, the circular dated 19.7.2012 relied on by the learned Additional Government Pleader has no validity in the eye of law. 8. This Court received several complaints enclosing copies of the letters addressed by the Government counsels to various societies. They are using a standard format in such letters. As soon as a case against a cooperative society comes up for admission, they attempt to take notice on behalf of the societies. Thereafter, they write letters containing the following identical text. It is necessary to reproduce one such text :- "In the above matter, the Hon'ble High Court has directed me to appear on behalf of you. I am herewith enclosing a Vakalath. Kindly sign the vakalath in the place of marked 'X' and sent it to me immediately, so as to enable me to enter appearance on your behalf in the above matter. I am herewith enclosing a Vakalath. Kindly sign the vakalath in the place of marked 'X' and sent it to me immediately, so as to enable me to enter appearance on your behalf in the above matter. Kindly send me a sum of Rs.10000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) towards my legal fees and filing expenses by way of demand draft or cheque drawn in my favour at the earliest" 9. In fact, one Additional Government Pleader had gone to the extent of addressing the Commissioner of Sugars in the following manner : "The allegations of the petitioners in the above writ petitions can be effectively met only by the Government Counsel instead of continuing the private counsels. Moreover the Private Counsel may not sail along with the Addl. Advocate General and the said reasons we cannot afford to take risk. In these circumstances, it is just and necessary to file supporting counter affidavit safeguarding the interest of the mills taking into consideration of the financial position of the sugar mills. Hence the Director of Sugar is requested to direct the respective mills to meet me immediately on 10.09.2012 with files and Vakalaths so as to prepare supporting affidavits in the above writ petitions." (Emphasis added) 10. These instances which are in the increase shows the ugly practice of brief soliciting by Government counsels and it should be nipped in the bud. If they feel that the fees paid by the Government is not adequate, they should seek for revision of their fees and not to venture into soliciting briefs where they can demand 20 times more than the fee fixed by the Government. 11. The Commissioner of Sugars cannot be a party for soliciting briefs for the Government Pleaders. Whether the Commissioner of Sugar had issued the circular on his own or under pressure from above is not clear. In any event, he cannot ask the societies to engage a particular counsel as even the G.O.Ms.No.414, Public (Law Officers) Department, dated 03.05.2012 has given him the allotment of Department of Cooperatives alone. 12. Since many complaints have come to this court from different bodies including panchayats and cooperative societies, this court is forced to clarify the legal position. It is made clear that any cooperative society which is manned by the Special officer or otherwise, is entitled to have the counsel of their choice. 12. Since many complaints have come to this court from different bodies including panchayats and cooperative societies, this court is forced to clarify the legal position. It is made clear that any cooperative society which is manned by the Special officer or otherwise, is entitled to have the counsel of their choice. It is also not open to this court to direct any Government Pleader to take notice on behalf of any societies or panchayats as those bodies have their choice for appointing their own counsels. The Government Pleaders must be informed that they cannot take notices for any bodies, for which they have not been engaged as retainers. 13. Hence a direction will issue to the Commissioner of Sugars, Chennai-35, Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Chennai-10, Director of Town Panchayat, Chennai-5 to issue circulars to all societies and panchayats that the choice of appointing the counsel is their own and the Government Pleaders, looking after the Government departments, cannot be asked to appear for them. This order shall be communicated to all officers for whom copies are separately marked. It shall be communicated by them within three weeks and a compliance report must be sent to this court. 14. A copy of this order shall also be marked to the Secretary, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, Chennai-104 for information and further action after enquiry. This writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs.