This appeal is preferred against the order dated 19th January, 2015 passed in W.P. No.742/2015 by the learned Single Judge declining to entertain the writ petition where the appellant had sought for a direction to the State of Karnataka to appoint any other Senior Lawyer as Special Public Prosecutor in Criminal Appeal Nos. 835838/2014.

2. The appellant is a Senior Politician and now he is 93 years old. He is the General Secretary of Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (D.M.K.) party, which is the principal opposition party in Tamil Nadu. He was elected as a Member of the Parliament. He was later elected as a Member of the Tamil Nadu State Legislative Assembly and served as Cabinet Minister in the State of Tamil Nadu on four occasions.

3. Selvi Jayalalitha was the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. AIADMK party headed by her was defeated in the General Election held in the year 1996. DMK party was voted to power. The appellant was a Minister in the said Ministry. Special Courts were constituted for the trial of cases filed against Selvi Jayalalitha and others. The constitution of Special Court came to be upheld by the Apex Court. Thereafter, in the year 1997, C.C.No.7 of 1997 was filed for the trial of accused and three others, who have been chargesheeted for offences under Section 120B of IPC, Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for the alleged accumulation of wealth disproportionate to their known sources of income. Yet another case in C.C.No.2/2001 was also filed against others. Trial of C.C.No.7/1997 progressed and by August 2000, 250 prosecution witnesses had been examined. In the general election held in May 2001, AIADMK Party headed by Selvi Jayalalaitha secured an absolute majority in the Legislative Assembly. She became the Chief Minister. The said appointment was challenged and Apex Court nullified her appointment. Consequently, she ceased to hold the office of the Chief Minister. However she was declared elected in a byeelection and was again sworn in as a Chief Minister. With the change in Government, three Public Prosecutors resigned. When the trial resumed as many as 76 P.Ws. had been recalled for crossexamination on the ground that the counsel appearing for the respondents or some of them had earlier been busy in some other case filed against them. The Public Prosecutor did not object. Majority of these witnesses resiled from their previous statementinchief. The Public Prosecutor did not make any attempt to declare them hostile and crossexamine them.

4. It is in this background, the appellant moved the Apex Court under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) for transfer of C.C. No.7/1997 and C.C. No.2/2001 on the file of the XI Additional Sessions Judge (Special Court No.1), Chennai in the State of Tamil Nadu to a Court of equal and competent jurisdiction in any other State. In those proceedings, the Apex Court after referring to the various judgments after going through the evidence of some witnesses, was of the view that it does appear that the new Public Prosecutor was handinglove with the accused thereby creating a reasonable apprehension of likelihood of failure of justice in the minds of the public at large. There was a strong indication that process of justice was being subverted. Therefore, they thought it expedient in the ends of justice to allow the transfer petition. Then they went into the question to which State the cases should be transferred and came to the conclusion that the State of Karnataka would be the most convenient due to its nearness to Tamil Nadu. Therefore, they passed the order allowing the transfer petition and transferred the said case from the State of Tamil Nadu to the State of Karnataka. The said judgment is reported in (2004) 3 SCC 767.

5. The Government of Karnataka in obedience to the aforesaid judgment dated 18th November, 2003 issued a notification dated 19th February, 200