Kerala advocate general Dandapani's private practice questioned at HC

KOCHI: Action should be taken against the violation of constitutional provisions by advocate general KP Dandapani in running a private office while holding a constitutional post, V Sivankutty MLA has demanded in a complaint filed to the Kerala High Court.
Addressing the registrar general of the high court in the complaint filed in public interest, the CPI(M) MLA argues that once an advocate is appointed as the advocate general, he should not conduct private practice, as per the Constitution.In stark contrast to this, the present advocate general has put up the name of his private office, Dandapani Associates, in front of his house and is engaging in private practice, it is alleged.
In around 270 cases that are conducted by the advocate general for the state, his wife and son, who are lawyers, are appearing on the opposite side. When a criminal named Gireesh Kumar alias Ali Bhai, who is wanted by Interpol, was represented by the AG’s son and wife, the government pleader colluded with them to obtain bail, it is alleged in the complaint.
The complaint also questioned appointment of AG’s son Millu Dandapani as the legal advisor for 34 institutions after the AG came to power.
Pointing out the conflict of interest in the AG engaging in private practice, the complaint stated that the cases that were being run by Dandapani for United Distilleries since 2002 are now being run by his wife Sumathy Dandapani for Dandapani Associates. Similarly, Dandapani’s cases since 2002 such as that of Banerji Memorial Club at Swaraj Round in Thrissur and case over encroachment of government land in Thrissur worth Rs100 crore are now conducted by Dandapani Associates, with the government on the opposing side, the complaint said.
Further, it is alleged by the complainant that Dandapani, who was removed from judgeship for not obeying the President’s order transferring him to Gujarat, is not qualified to continue holding the constitutional post of advocate general. A person ousted from one constitutional post is not qualified to hold another, it is alleged.