VIBHU BAKHRU, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the appointment of respondent no.3 (Sh Pankaj Kumar), as the Special Public Prosecutor for Special Court under the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereafter ‘SC/ST Act’), in Sessions case 27462/2016.

2. The petitioner states that he is the landlord of the premises bearing No. 165, Dr Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi-110009. He states that in the year 2008, he had leased a part of his property to a lady (hereafter ‘Ms K’) who entered the premises as a tenant and started residing in the property along with her brothers and sisters. The petitioner claims that there was a landlord-tenant dispute with regard to use of water, as the same was in short supply and this had led Ms K to file a false complaint against him at P.S. Mukherjee Nagar, on 03.05.2008.

3. On the complaint filed by Ms K, an FIR (being FIR No. 156 dated 03.05.2008) has been registered against the petitioner, inter alia, under the SC/ST Act. Thereafter, charges were framed against the petitioner and his family members on 08.07.2008, and the case is pending trial before the concerned court.

4. Initially, the petitioner and his family members were discharged by the learned Sessions Court, however, on a Criminal Revision petition preferred by the complainant, the order of discharge was set aside. Thereafter, the complainant (Ms K) filed a transfer petition seeking transfer of the case from the concerned Court, to another Court. The said transfer petitions were rejected by this Court on 29.08.2013. Aggrieved by the same, the complainant had preferred an appeal being criminal appeal No.222/2015 before the Supreme Court of India. The same was allowed by an order dated 04.02.2015, and the trial of the said case was transferred from the Rohini Sessions Division to the Tis Hazari Sessions Division.

5. The grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that the complainant’s counsel (respondent no.3) has been appointed as a Special Public Prosecutor to prosecute the case on behalf of the State against the petitioner. He has pointed out that respondent no.3 has been regularly appearing on behalf of the complainant in several cases and therefore prays that the appointment of respondent no.3 as a special prosecutor to prosecute the case against the petitioner, be set aside. The petitioner further submits that the appointment of respondent no.3 is not in accordance with the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereafter the SC/STRules).

6. Respondent nos.1 and 2 have filed a counter affidavit indicating that respondent no.3 was appointed as a Special Public Prosecutor in view of the opinion dated 01.07.2016, received from the Department of Law.

7. A plain reading of the said opinion indicates that the Law Department had opined that it was not necessary for the respondents to decide the criteria for appointment of an eminent senior lawyer, as the same was not relevant because the alleged victim had specifically requested for appointment of respondent no.3 as an Advocate. Thus, according to the respondents, once the victim has indicated his or her choice of an advocate to act a special prosecutor, the concerned District Magistrate/Sub Divisional Magistrate is not required to apply his mind as to whether it is necessary to appoint a special prosecutor or whether the concerned advocate qualifies the criteria of an “eminent Senior Advocate”.

8. Mr Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contends that the SC/ST Act is a special act, and, in terms of Rule 4(5) of the SC/ST Rules, an advocate could be appointed at the choice of the victim. He further submits that the expression “eminent Senior Advocate” as used in Sub-rule (5) of Rule 4 of the SC/ST Rules, should not be construed as a designated Senior Advocate. but as lawyers who have an experience exceeding seven years at the bar. He referred to the