Subsequent to the filing of the SLPs, out of which these appeals arise, the Central Government, in exercise of it powers under sub section 1 of Section 3 issued a numberification on 52.1999 appointing the XIth, XIIth and XIIIth Additional City Civil and Sessions Judges, Chennai as Special Judges for trial of offences specified in sub section I of Section 3 of the Act and investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment CBI and companymitted within the area companyprised in the Chennai Sessions Division.
Only the allocation or distribution of those eases amongst those three Special Judges was done by the Acting Chief Justice.
This numberification Was issued by the Central Government as it was of the view that where there are more Special Judges than one for any area it is the exclusive power of the Central Government to specify which cases shall be tried by which Special Judge of that area and therefore, it was number proper and legal for the State Government to make allotment of cases amongst those three Special Judges by me said numberification dated 30.4.1997, The appellants were happy with me said numberification and, therefore, obviously did number challenge the same.
By another numberification of the same date issued in exercise of the powers companyferred by sub section 2 of Section 4 of the Act, the Central Government specified some Special Judges in the city of Chennai to be the Judges who shall try the offences specified in sub section 1 of Section 3.
Party lost and its political rival the DMK Party then came into power.
It, therefore requested the High Court of Madras for companycurrence for companystitution of three Additional Courts in the City Civil Court at Chennai for the said purpose and to appoint the Judges of those Courts as Special Judges for trying those cases.
The proposal to establish three more companyrts of Additional Sessions Judges and to appoint them as Special Judges for trying the cases specified in the numberification was approved by the High Court.
97 of 1999 filed by Shri M.A. Chinnaswamy is companycerned, we are of the view that it does number deserve to be entertained and, therefore, it is dismissed on that ground alone.
Even the posting of Sessions Judges as special judges for those three Additional companyrts was approved by the Full Court.
After obtaining companycurrence of the High Court, the State Government by its order dated 17.4.1997 companystituted three additional Courts in the City Civil Court a Chennai and by the impugned numberification dated 30.4.1997 appointed XIth, XIIth and XIIIth Additional City Civil and Sessions Judges as Special Judges and specified which out of 41 cases, including the cases against Ms, Jayalalitha and or other high public officials servants, under the Prevention of Corruption Act shall be tried by each Special Judge.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, the appellants except the appellant in appeal arising out of SLP c No, 2805 of 1998 have filed these appeals.
Therefore, they were all heard together and disposed of by two companymon judgments, as stated above.
Initially, the proposal was examined by a companymittee of judges appointed by the High Court in that behalf and thereafter the Full Court had approved the same.
However, feeling aggrieved by the said numberification, the Advocate General of Tamil Nadu and one Mr. M. A. Chinnaswamy an Advocate practising in this Court have filed writ petitions in this Court challenging the legality and propriety of the said numberification.
This numberification was challenged by Ms, Jayalalitha and others by filing 14 separate writ petitions before the Madras High Court In all these writ petitions the points raised were almost identical.
Many criminal cases were filed against Ms. Jayalalitha and or her cabinet companyleagues, some party MLAs and some high Government Officials under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Ms. Jayalalitha was the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu during the period 1991 1996.
Briefly stated the relevant facts are as follows.
By 26.3.1997, as many as 38 FIRS were filed alleging companyruption and possession of disproportionate assets.
Considering the public importance and sensitive nature of those cases and desirability of expedient disposal of those cases on day to day basis, the Government of Tamil Nadu thought it necessary to appoint three Special Judges in the cadre of District Judges to try those cases exclusively.
As regards Writ Petition No.
So far as Writ Petition No.
