It was also the stand of respondent No.1 that the view expressed by this Court in Mukul Dalal v. Union of India, 1988 3 SCC 144, was number kept in view while making the appointment.
The appointment of respondent No.3 appears to have been made on the basis of a petition filed by the brother and the son of the victim.
The scope for judicial review has been examined by this companyrt in several cases.
The basic grievance of respondent No.1 was that the appointment of respondent No.3 as a Special Public Prosecutor was in violation of the scheme of Section 24 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in short the Code and Rule 22 of the Rules for the Conduct of the Legal Affairs of Government, 1984 in short The Rules .
This was a case where two persons were killed.
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. Leave granted.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court allowing the Writ Petition filed by present respondent No.1.
In the Writ Petition before the High Court challenge was to the appointment of the present respondent No.3 as a Special Public Prosecutor for companyducting Sessions Case No.41 of 2006 pending before the Sessions Court at Islampur in Sangli District.
