Khem Karan, J. - (1.) The present writ petition styled as Public Interest Litigation (for short P.I.L.) has been filed by a practicing lawyer of this Court, who by now is fairly known in the legal fraternity, at least at Lucknow because of his earlier four PILs [Writ Petition Nos. 4953 (M/B) of 1999, 1838 (M/B) of 2000, 4393 (M/B) of 2000 and 4957 (M/B) of 2001], filed in this Court at Lucknow, in a short span of two or three years, for espousal of one cause or the other. We were informed during the course of arguments that all. those four PILs were dismissed by this Court and in some of them not only a great displeasure was shown, but cost was also imposed on the petitioner, for filing untenable and ill-founded PILs. But undeterred by those severe strictures and the imposition of cost, the petitioner has again brought this PIL, raising the matters, most of which arc academic in nature than real one and some of them arc political in nature.
(2.) Before we advert to the pleas taken in the writ petition, we would like to reproduce the reliefs sought in this writ petition, as in our view, the same would itself reveal the nature of this litigation : (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of quo warranto asking the respondent No. 1 as to how he accepted the appointment as Advocate General for the State of U.P. after being disqualified for the appointment as Judge of the High Court. (ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of appointment of Sri S.C. Mishra, respondent No. 1 for the post of Advocate General, U.P. after summoning the same from the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the rejection order passed by the Supreme Court collegium by means of which the recommendation made with regards to respondent No. 1 for Judge of the High Court was rejected by the Supreme Court collegians after summoning the same from the concerned respondents. (iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents concerned to reconsider the recommendation made by High Court collegium with regards to the appointment of respondent No. 1 as Judge of the High Court. (v) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Government of India to take back the designation of Deputy Prime Minister given to Sri L.K. Advani and as the State Governments not to create the new constitutional offices not created by the Constitution by using the words like acting, additional adhoc, Vice or Deputy before an office created by the Constitution like Deputy Chief Minister or Additional Advocate General and to declare that "a" (single constitutional offices) can not be interpreted as plural with the help of Section 13 (2) of General Clause Act. (vi) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 5 to 7 to take necessary action against the defective working of respondent Nos. 3 and 4. (vii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Government of India to amend the Indian Constitution and to introduce so many good provisions quoted by the petitioner in the writ petition, in the Indian Constitution and the top offices of the country should be reserved for "natural born Indians". (viii) Issue a writ, order or directions in the nature of mandamus directing the Government of India to take mandamus directing the Government of India to take the necessary action to nullify the judgment of the Supreme Court given in the case of S.C. Advocate on record v. Union of India and the Presidential Reference Case No. 1 of 1998 and to constitute a commission for the appointment of High Court and Supreme Court, Judges. (ix) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of quo warranto asking the respondent No. 4 as to how he is holding the office of Attorney General for India and direct the Government of India to remove the respondent No. 4 from the office of Attorney General of India. (x) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of quo warranto asking the respondent No. 10 as to how she is holding the office of the leader of the opposition in Lok Sabha and the Chairperson of the Indian National Congress and direct the Government of India to derecognised her as leader of the opposition in the Parliament and to direct the respondent No. 9 not to except the respondent No. 10 as Chairperson of Indian National Congress. (xi) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 3, 5 and 6 to appoint a Additional or Deputy Chief Justice of India and to appoint the Additional or Deputy Chief Justices in all the Benches of the High Courts of the Country. (xii) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(3.) It has been stated in Paras 3 to 19 of the writ petition that the candidature of Sri Satish Chandra Mishra (O. P. No. 1) was earlier sponsored by Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court, for appointment as a Judge of this Court, but was not cleared by collegium of the Apex Court and so he was not eligible to be appointed as Advocate General of this State and the State of U.P. committed grave illegality by appointing him as such. He goes on to say that Sri Mishra was earlier designated as a Senior Advocate and so rejection of his candidature for appointment as a Judge of this Court was not justified.;