1. The Petitioners 1 To 10 Are Some Of The Accused In S.C.No.39 Of 1993 In The Court Of Special Sessions Judge-Cum-Iv Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, Relating To Offences Punishable Under Sections 120b, 147, 148, 302, 307 And 201 Read With Section 149 Ipc And Section 3(2)(V) Of Schedule Castes And Schedule Tribes (Prevention Of Attrocities) Act. It Is Popularly Known As Tsundur Carnage Case.

2. It Is Alleged That Along With The Petitioners, 218 Others Also Faced Trial In That Sessions Case. The Special Sessions Judge, After Trial, Convicted Some Of The Accused For Various Offences And Sentenced Them Accordingly, And Also Acquitted Some Of The Accused In That Case. The Accused Persons Who Were Convicted And Sentenced, Filed Criminal Appeal Nos.1021, 1022, 1023, 1024, 1025, 1045, 1046 And 1060 Of 2007 And 470 Of 2011. The State Also Filed Criminal Appeal Nos.389 And 988 Of 2008 Against Those Accused Who Were Acquitted By The Special Sessions Judge. Some Of The Victims/Complainants Filed Criminal Revision Case No.829 Of 2008 Questioning The Finding Of Acquittal Recorded By The Special Sessions Judge Against Some Of The Accused. The Special Sessions Judge Delivered Judgment In The Sessions Case On 31.7.2007.

3. When The Above Appeals And Revision Case Have Been Pending In This Court, The Government Issued The Impugned G.O.Rt.No.980 Law (La And J-Home Court-A1), Dated 6.6.2011 Appointing The 3rd Respondent As Special Public Prosecutor And The 4th Respondent As Assistant Special Public Prosecutor To Conduct Prosecution In Tsundur Carnage Case Before This Court In All The Appeals, Revision Petitions And All Related Matters. Questioning The ViresAnd Propriety Of The Government Of Andhra Pradesh In Issuing G.O.Rt.No.980, The Petitioners 1 To 10 Filed This Writ Petition Under Article 226 Of The Constitution Of India Seeking MandamusDeclaring G.O.Rt.No.980, Dt.6.6.2011 As Arbitrary, Illegal And Unconstitutional.

4. The 1st Respondent Filed Counter Affidavit Contending That The 5th Respondent, Who Is President Of Tsundur Dalit Victims Struggle Committee, Guntur Submitted Representation To The Government Seeking Appointment Of The Respondents 3 And 4 As Special Public Prosecutor And Special Assistant Public Prosecutor To Conduct Prosecution In Tsundur Carnage Case Before This Court And That After Careful Examination Of The Said Representation, The Government In Exercise Of The Powers Conferred Under Section 24(8) Of The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act I Of 1974) (In Short ‘The Code’) Read With G.O.Ms.No.187 Law (L) Department, Dated 6.12.2000 Appointed The Respondents 3 And 4 To Conduct Prosecution In The Case Before The High Court By Issuing Impugned G.O.Rt.No.980. It Is Further Contended That The Government Issued The Impugned G.O. After Thorough Examination Of Entire Record In The Matter. The 3rd Respondent Filed Counter Affidavit On Behalf Of The Respondents 3 And 4 Opposing The Writ Petition. The 5th Respondent Did Not File Counter In This Writ Petition.

5. It Is Contended By Senior Counsel For The Petitioners That The Government Should Not Have Appointed The Respondents 3 And 4 As Special Public Prosecutor And Assistant Special Public Prosecutor Respectively On Mere Asking By The 5th Respondent. It Is Contended That The Defacto Complainants, Who Are Private Parties Have No Say In The Matter Of Appointing Of Public Prosecutors And In Conducting Of Prosecution Before The Courts And That It Is Prerogative Of The Government To Appoint A Person As Public Prosecutor Under Section 24 Of The Code. It Is Pointed Out That When There Is A Public Prosecutor And Four Additional Public Prosecutors Appointed By The Government For Conducting Prosecutions In The High Court In Accordance With Section 24(1) Of The Code After Compliance Of The Procedure, The Government Should Not Have Exercised The Power Conferred Under Section 24(8) Of The Code To Appoint Special Public Prosecutors For This Particular Case And That It Is Not The Gove