ORDER

17.11.2009 — Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.K. Moha¬patra, the learned Government Advocate for the opposite parties.

Since this matter involves directly the administration of justice and is with regard to the powers of the Public Prose¬cutor, we are deciding the writ petition at the admission stage, particularly when the impugned order has been passed by the Public Prosecutor, who has not filed any counter affidavit. Other opposite parties have chosen not to file any counter affidavit.

By the impugned order dated 2.6.2009 under Annexure-2 to the writ petition, the Public Prosecutor has withdrawn Mr. Swapnanan¬da Pattanaik, who is the petitioner in the case and was working as APP in the Court of Ad hoc Additional District Judge Track I, Puri, from appearing the said Court. The petitioner was appointed as an APP by the Government of Orissa in terms of the powers conferred on it under Section 25, CrPC. Such appointment is to be made in accordance with the Orissa Law Officer’s Rules, 1971.

The effect of the impugned order is that the petitioner has become a workless APP, though he is drawing his retainership fee. The impugned order passed by the Public Prosec