VIDYA NAND RAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. Alka Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Sunil Kumar Mandal, learned SC-3 for the State.

(2.) This writ petition was initially filed as a personal interest litigation, inasmuch as the petitioner tried to espouse the cause on behalf of the victims under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) and the Rules framed thereunder in so far as the legislature bestows a right on the victim to have an advocate of his/her choice. Learned Single Judge of this Court bearing note of the issue raised, allowed the writ petition to be converted into a Public Interest Litigation and that is how the matter is placed before us.

(3.) We have heard Ms. Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Mandal, learned SC-3 for the State and we have also examined Rule 4(1) and Rule 4(5) of the Rules framed under the Act in so far as it deals with the issue raised in this writ petition and we note that while Rule 4(1) allows the District Magistrate to prepare a panel of eminent Senior Advocates for conducting the cases in Special Courts and Exclusively Special Courts arising under the Act , Rule 4(5) has been incorporated, having an overriding effect, to confer power on the District Magistrate as well as the victim concerned, to engage an eminent Senior Advocate of the choice if the need so arises. For the sake of ready reference we reproduce Rule 4(1) and Rule 4(5) of the Rules: