C. BHARATHIDASAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr.M.Sarangan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondent. By consent, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

(2.) This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order of the respondent in Na.Ka.No.T4/676688/2023 dtd. 24/3/2023, wherein, the respondent has appointed Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandian, Advocate, as Special Public Prosecutor to conduct the Spl.S.C.No.36 of 2019 on the file of the PCR Court, Trichy, for the offences under Ss. 147, 148, 420, 447, 294(b), 354(i) IPC r/w 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2) (va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, based on the representation given by the defacto complainant.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a Government Servant and he is working as Junior Assistant in the Backward Class Department since 2013. He would further submit that it is a false case filed only to damage the image of the petitioner. He would further submit that on 9/2/2023, when the said case has been posted before the trial Court for arguments, the entire trial has been completed. Thereafter, the present impugned order has been passed based on the representation of the defacto complainant. Hence, this present writ petition came to be filed challenging the said impugned order of appointment.