https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306800 The application for a writ of 'quo warranto' against the non-applicant, challenging the appointment of the Advocate-General, was rejected. The Court upheld the validity of the appointment, ruling that the Advocate-General's previous retirement as a High Court Judge and age did not invalidate his appointment. The applicant was directed to bear the costs of the proceedings, with leave to appeal granted under Article 132(1) of the Constitution. en-us Mon, 27 Nov 1950 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Feb 2023 16:45:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306800 The application for a writ of 'quo warranto' against the non-applicant, challenging the appointment of the Advocate-General, was rejected. The Court upheld the validity of the appointment, ruling that the Advocate-General's previous retirement as a High Court Judge and age did not invalidate his appointment. The applicant was directed to bear the costs of the proceedings, with leave to appeal granted under Article 132(1) of the Constitution. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 27 Nov 1950 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306800