Honble JHA, CJ.–A short but significant question of law regarding interpretation of sub-rule (5) of rule 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules 1995 is involved in these two appeals. The appeals arise from the same judgment of the learned Single Judge. They were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2). Respondent No. 1, Tikam Singh, filed writ petition for quashing the order of the District Magistrate, Pali dated 16.6.2005 appointing Shri Mahesh Bora as advocate to conduct the trial in Sessions Case No. 85/2005 arising from FIR No. 36/2005 of Jaitaran Police Station, and the order of the Special Judge SC & ST Cases, Pali dated 30.9.2005 rejecting his (Tikam Singhs) application challenging the competence of Shri Mahesh Bora to conduct the trial. The respondent also sought direction to restrain Shri Bora from appearing as Special Public Prosecutor in the case.

(3). Sub rule (5) of rule 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (in short `the Rules) empowers the District Magistrate/Sub-Divisional Magistrate to engage advocate to conduct cases in special courts with respect to the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document