ORDER :

1. The present appeal is filed challenging the order dated 07.11.2019 passed in W.P. (C) No. 769 of 2019 dismissing the writ of quo warranto against the third respondent, an advocate who was appointed as a Special Public Prosecutor vide order dated 28.12.2018 issued by the Secretary, Law & Legislative Affairs Department. The order reads as follows:-

“GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR

SECRETARIAT: LAW & LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT

ORDERS

Imphal, December 28, 2018

No. 5/104/2018-Case/L: The Governor of Manipur is pleased to engage Shri Rarry Mangsatabam, Advocate to conduct prosecution in Cril Complaint Case No. 1 of 2018 [the Addl. Public Prosecutor (District), Manipur vs. Ms. Babie Shirin and Others] on behalf of the complaint in the Court of Sessions Judge, Imphal West.

2. The Public Prosecutor (District) in coordination with Shri Rarry Mangsatabam, Advocate are to file a petition under Section 302 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the Sessions Judge, Imphal West for permission to conduct the prosecution in the above case.

By order and in the name of Governor.

Sd/-

(Nungsitombi Athokpam)

Secretary (Law)

Governor of Manipur.”

2. This order appointing the third respondent as Special Public Prosecutor is challenged in W.P. (C) No. 769 of 2019 to issue a writ of quo warranto against 3rd respondent pleading that the appointment is contrary to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 besides being arbitrary and without reason. The relief sought for in the writ petition is as follows:-

“(i) to call for the records of the case:

(ii) to allow the Writ Appeal in full by setting aside/modifying the impugned judgement and order dated 07-11-2019 (Annexure-D/2) passed by the Hon'ble Single Bench in WP (C) No. 769 of 2019 and allow the prayers of the appellants/petitioner as prayed for in the writ petition (Annexure-D/1) in full.

(iii) to pass any other appropriate order/direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper.

AND

In the interim, it is prayed that Your Lordship may graciously be pleased to pass an interim order for staying the further proceeding of the said Cril. (C) Case No. 1 of 2018 during the pendency of the present petition so as to avoid the illegal/irregular proceedings that are being conducted before the Ld. Court and to pass any appropriate order/direction which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case as the ends of justice may call for.”

3. The facts that led to the present appeal is as follows:-

In October, 2018, the State of Manipur through the Public Prosecutor (District) filed a Criminal Complaint Case No. 1 of 2018 against the three accused/appellants/the writ petitioners in relation to an alleged act of defamation by the accused person jointly and severally against the Chief Minister of Manipur in discharge of his public functions. The complaint was filed in terms of Section 199(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Sanction for prosecution in terms of Section 199(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was issued by the State Government, Department of Home vide order No. 2/8(1)/2018-H(CH) dated 27.10.2018.

4. Section 199 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 reads as follows:-

“199. Prosecution for defamation. (1)

**** **** **** ****

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Code, when any offence falling under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is alleged to have been committed against a person who at the time of such commission, is the President of India, the Vice-President of India, the Governor of a State, the Administrator of a Union territory or a Minister of the Union or of a State or of a Union territory, or any other public servant employed in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State in respect of his conduct in the discharge of his public functions a Court of Session may take cognizance of such offence, without the case being committed to it, upon a complaint in writing made by the Public Prosecutor.”

5. Th