Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee has been petitioned by a group of Supreme Court lawyers questioning a government move in having obtained the attorney general's opinion on a point on which it had known the legal stand from his predecessor.

''We apprehend malafide intention of the central government behind this sinister design to manage this opinion from the office of attorney general,'' the lawyers said in a petition, a copy of which was released on Friday.

The lawyers critical of a government decision to sell off stakes in ''profit-making'' public sector units have charged that the ''corporate sector'' was trying to sway Indian institutions in pursuit of its goals.

The government trying to sell Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited had sought Attorney General Soli Sorabjee's legal opinion in the face of opposition in Parliament.

The petitioners said they were ''shocked and amazed'' to find from newspaper reports that Sorabjee ''has opined that HPCL and BPCL could be divested without parliamentary approval when both the companies were created by parliamentary legislation.''

The petitioners cited a newspaper report published this week that former Attorney General Milon Banerjee gave an opinion as early as 1993 that companies created by parliamentary acts could not be privatised without parliamentary approval.

''Once having obtained this opinion from the earlier attorney general, the central government ought not have obtained further opinion from the solicitor general or attorney general in order to favour certain multinational companies interested in taking over these highly profitable public sector companies,'' the petition asserted.

The lawyers' argument raises questions about the ongoing process to dinvest public stakes in industries crucial to India's economy and growth acquired in times when private sector pockets were not deep enough.

The petition voiced surprise that the fresh opinion sought to justify the move on the basis of ''earlier similar privatisation'' of Indo Burma Petroleum and Maruti Udyog Limited.

''This did not reflect an appreciation that illegal decision made earlier will not become legal precedents for all future acts of privatisation. We are of this opinion that all such earlier decisions were per-se illegal. ''

The petition demanded why action was not taken on the basis of the opinion of previous attorney general, which ''was on the file.''

The petition recalled ''that on earlier occasion also, the present attorney general had reviewed its opinion in favour of cell operators by permitting them to switch over to 'revenue sharing' basis despite finalisation of contracts on the basis of highest bid offered by them.''

It said the ''system of reviewing and further taking opinion with a view to justify 'dubious deals' is highly deplorable.'' This alluded to Sorabjee's legal opinion to the government on switching from a licence-fee arrangement to a revenue sharing arrangement in telecom sector, following which fears arose whether any pressure had been brought to bear.

The AG made it clear then that he had not been pressurised by the prime minister or his office into giving a legal opinion allowing existing telecom operators to migrate to a revenue-sharing regime.

The petitioners said selling profitable public sector units was especially questionable when a public sector Oil and Natural Gas Corporation ''is compelled to purchase'' a losing private sector Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals.

Last month, more than a hundred apex court lawyers petitioned Vajpayee questioning a government decision to sell ''highly profitable blue chip sector units'' without parliamentary approval and sanction.

The petitioners asserted that public sector oil companies were created through Acts of Parliament and cannot be privatised without its approval.

Prima facie, sale of public companies in public sector is a political decision and for that purpose every action of the executive is answerable to Parliament, specially when those companies are created through parliamentary Acts, they held.

''Under any circumstances,'' the lawyers wrote, ''the character of the company, public or private determined by Parliament cannot be altered or changed without parliamentary approval.''

They cautioned that any such attempt ''would be undermining the sovereignty of Parliament.''

The petition was signed by advocates Ravi Prakash Gupta, A S Qureshi, R K Maheshwari, Dr K S Chauhan, H S Josh, R D Rathore, R C Pandey and others.

UNI