Mala fide withdrawal of Special Public Prosecutor's appointment quashed; Special Judge tenure left to prescribed administrative process.

Withdrawal of a Special Public Prosecutor's appointment was invalid where the State had consulted the Chief Justice, acted on the appointment for months, and later sought revocation without a legally sustainable basis; the Court treated the abrupt change of stance as mala fides in law and quashed the withdrawal. On the question of extending a Special Judge's tenure, the Court held that it would not bypass the prescribed statutory and constitutional procedure by exercising extraordinary power directly. The matter was left to the High Court and the State Government to consider administratively in accordance with the applicable service rules and required consultation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the withdrawal of the appointment of the Special Public Prosecutor was valid in law; (ii) whether the Court should extend the tenure of the Special Judge under its constitutional powers or remit the question to the High Court on the administrative side.

Issue (i): Whether the withdrawal of the appointment of the Special Public Prosecutor was valid in law.

Analysis: The appointment of the Special Public Prosecutor had been made after consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court and had continued for several months without objection. The Government, though bound to consult, could not justify the withdrawal on the ground that the name had originally emanated from the Chief Justice. A party on whom the duty to consult rests cannot later complain of want of consultation after having acted upon the recommendation and acquiesced in the appointment. The change in stance was found to be abrupt, unsupported by a legally sustainable reason, and indicative of malice in law. The Court also noted that the revocation came at a stage when the trial was substantially advanced and that interruption of the prosecutor would likely impede a fair and expeditious trial.

Conclusion: The withdrawal of the Special Public Prosecutor's appointment was held to be vitiated by mala fides and was quashed, in favour of the petitioners.

Issue (ii): Whether the Court should extend the tenure of the Special Judge under its constitutional powers or remit the question to the High Court on the administrative side.

Analysis: The Court declined to grant a direct extension of service in exercise of extraordinary constitutional power where the governing service rules and constitutional scheme prescribed a lawful procedure. It held that when a statute or rule lays down a particular mode for doing a thing, that mode must be followed and no other is permissible. The relevant service rules permitted appointment of a retired judicial officer on contractual basis, subject to the constitutional and statutory framework and consultation with the High Court. In these circumstances, the appropriate course was for the competent authority, in consultation with the High Court, to consider the matter administratively.

Conclusion: The question of extending the Special Judge's services was left to be considered by the High Court and the State Government in accordance with the applicable rules and constitutional requirements.

Final Conclusion: The impugned withdrawal of the Special Public Prosecutor's appointment was invalid and set aside, while the question of extending the trial judge's tenure was referred for administrative consideration under the applicable legal framework.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory or constitutional power exercised for an unauthorised purpose or in disregard of the prescribed consultative procedure is vulnerable to being struck down, and the Court will not bypass a mandatory statutory mode of action by invoking extraordinary powers where the law provides a specific procedure.

---