ORDER
1. The petitioner is a practising lawyer of this Court and has filed this writ petition praying for a writ of certiorari quashing conditions Nos. 2, 3, 5, 7, 9 and 10, and para 1 of the appointment of State Law Officers in the High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow insofar as it imposes a ban on private practice on them and provides for non-payment of any other fees than the fees mentioned in the said para of the G.O. dated 30-6-1989. A writ of mandamus has also been prayed commanding opposite party No. 1 not to impose the said conditions.
2. Learned Additional Advocate-General raised, a preliminary objection that the petitioner has got no right to maintain this petition and it is not a public interest litigation as has been contended by in the writ petition. He has also pointed out that one of the conditions by which the State Law Officers are to maintain diary of the work done by them has already been stated by the Advocate-General. It has been further stated that very recently large number of counsel -- both civil and criminal side have been appointed by the State Government and some of them have been upgraded. It has not been stated before us that the said State Law Officers have been put at a loss monetarily in any manner. It has also not been stated before us whether they had any wish or no wish in the High Court before their appointment or that they had good private practice. Admittedly all the State Law Officers have given their consent to the conditions except one who has filed a writ petition at Allahabad along with few others in which an interim order has been passed by the Court. The instant writ petition has been filed thereafter at Lucknow. All these State Law Officers obviously were some lawyers of few years standing which has a higher place in social hierarchy of country which is supposed to assist the Court in exercising fair and just decision with their legal knowledge and fight the cause of litigants for getting justice. All of them are law graduates and belong to in-telligentia class. There is no allegation whatsoever that they were coerced or were left with no option but to accept the post of State Law Officers. They voluntarily chose to become State Law Officer. We are not concerned whether the same was thrust upon them or efforts for the same were made by them. The contention of the petitioner is that these conditions to which the State Law Officers have been subjected are humiliating, derogatory to legal profession and against the Bar Councils Act and Rules framed thereunder which preserve the dignity of this noble profession. On the dignity of profession and right of lawyers reference to certain cases was made. But the question is whether a third person can espouse or challenge the conditions on which lawyers who are members of intelligentia class well versed in law assisting the Courts with their knowledge, pleading and championing the cause of litigants who have voluntarily consented to become State Law Officers on those conditions and are not interested in such a litigation.
3. The learned Additional Advocate-General representing the State challenged the locus standi of the petitioner to file the instant writ petition and claim such a relief for unwilling group of persons small in number. The action so started by the petitioner in the circumstances could be taken to mean that the same has been initiated for ridiculing and denigrating and lowering in public esteem in general and lawyer class in particular. The public interest litigation cannot be extended in every field and in every matter. The petitioner relied on the observations made by the Supreme Court in S. P. Gupta v. President of India, AIR 1982 SC 149, popularly known as Judges case, in support of his plea of locus standi to present this writ petition. The Court in the said case observed that where there is undoubtedly public injury by the act or omission of the State of Public authority but such act or omission also causes a specific legal injury to an individual or to a specific class or group of individuals. In such cases a member of public having sufficient interest can certainly maintain an action challenging the legality of such act or omission. The Court observed that practising lawyers have a vital interest in the independence of judiciary and if any unconstitutional or illegal action is taken by the State or any public authority which has the effect of impairing the independence of judiciary they would certainly be interested in challenging the constitutionality or legality of such action. They had clearly a concern deeper than that of a busy lawyer and they can maintain a writ petition in the matter. In the said case challenge was to the Minister's circular and grant of short term extensions to the sitting Additional Judges. But in the said case the Court in paragraph 24 observed: ".... but if the person or specific class or group of persons who are primarily injured as a result of such act or omission do not wish to claim any relief and accept such act or omission willingly and without protest the member of public who complains of a secondary public injury cannot maintain the action, for the effect of entertaining the action at the instance of such member of public would be to grant a relief on the person or specific class or group of persons primarily injured which they do not want".
4. In State of Himachal Pradesh v. A Parent of Student of Medical College, Simla, (1985) 3 SCC 169 : (AIR 1985 SC 910), the Court observed (at p. 911 of AIR):
"..... Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the Executive and the Legislature."
In Dr. Upendra Baxi v. State of U. P., (1986) 4 SCC 106 : (AIR 1987 SC 191), it was observed:--
"The public interest litigation is not a litigation of an adversary character undertaken for the purpose of holding the State Government or its Officers responsible for making reparation. This kind of litigation involves a collaborative and co-operative effort on the part of the State Government and its officers, the lawyers appearing in the case and the Bench for the purpose of making human rights, meaningful for the weaker sections of the community. It marks a step forward in the direction of reaching socio-economic justice to the depraved and vulnerable sections of humanity in this country."
Similarly in Bihar Legal Support Society v. Chief Justice of India, (1986) 4 SCC 767 : (AIR 1987 SC 38), it was observed :--
"In the matters of life and liberty of people Supreme Court is more concerned with weaker, deprived, vulnerable and ignorant class of people than the affluent class."
Public interest litigation is to be in the interest of public at large or a section of public or group of public who are not in a position to agitate the matter themselves because of poverty and other disabilities and not for maintenance of certain standard, dignity, confidence, position or respect in the society. It is not a weapon for any advertisement not resulting in any real relief to those in whose interest it allegedly has been set in motion. It is not to be thrusted on abled section of society fully conscious of their interest and benefit which can result even in loss rather than gain to such section of society.
5. The instant litigation is of such a type and allegedly in the interest of legal profession who have entered into a contract with their client viz. the State Government. The petitioner has no locus standi to claim such a declaration and other relief claimed by him none of which are in his interest and are also not in the interest of deaf, dumb, disabled or socially handicapped persons, as such the writ petition is not entertainable. In view of the fact the writ petition is not entertainable, it is not necessary to enter into merits.
6. In view of what has been stated above, the writ petition is dismissed in limine.
7. Soon after the judgment was pronounced, learned Counsel for the petitioner prayed for grant of certificate for appeal to Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. In our view no substantial question of general importance is involved in this case and our decision is based on judgment pronounced by Hon'ble Supreme Court. The prayer is refused.
8. Petition dismissed.