MOHAN JEE UPADHYAY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner had initially prayed for quashing an order of the Minister, Department of Law, dated 12.3.1993, whereby and whereunder, at the request of one Abdul Bari Siddiki, Member of Bihar Legislative Assembly, it was directed that Sri Ganpat Mandal (Respondent No. 7) be made Incharge Public Prosecutor in place of Janardan Tiwary (Respondent No. 6). The further prayer was for a direction to Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 to appoint a Public Prosecutor strictly in terms of the provisions of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Code').

(2.) During pendency of this writ application, a supplementary petition for necessary amendment in the writ application, was filed, praying therein, for quashing the recommendation for appointment of the Public Prosecutor, sent by the District Magistrate through his letter No. 307 dated 13.5.1993, a copy of which is Annexure-5. In view of the changed circumstanctes, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner confined his prayer for quashing of the recommendation and make appointment in accordance with law.

(3.) We have heard learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, learned Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State, as also. Mr. Ripu Daman Singh learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 6. Therefore, with their consent, this writ application is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself.