Ravi Malimath, J.

The petitioner seeks for a writ of certiorari to quash the Notification dated 12-4-2007 bearing No.OE.167 PPE 2007 vide Annexure-A.

2. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri.A.K. Kotrashetty, submits that at the request of the 3rd respondent, the 2nd respondent has been appointed as a Special Public prosecutor vide the impugned Notification dated 12-4-2007 vide Annexure-A. He contends that the impugned Notification is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the case of K.V. Shiva Reddy vs. State of Karnataka 2005 (4) Crimes 518 (Kar) that there are no reasons in the impugned order to justify the said appointment; that the impugned order has been passed mechanically on the mere asking by respondent No.3 and that the appointment is not a suo motu appointment, but due to the fact that the injured person is politically influential; that the Director of prosecution is the best Judge as to who should conduct the trial and that by virtue of the impugned order aspersions would be cast on the regular Public Prosecutor who is attached to the Court.

3. To substantiate his grounds, the petitioner has vehemently contended that the impugned order has been pa