AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
Heard Mr. R.K. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties.
The petitioner, who is claiming to be an advocate, has filed this writ petition challenging the appointment of opposite party no.9 as Special Public Prosecutor (POSCO) in the Special Court, Balasore.
Mr. R.K. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though the petitioner, being an advocate, is interested to be appointed as Public Prosecutor, but his case has not been considered whereas opposite party no.9 has been appointed.
As it appears, opposite party no.9 was appointed in the year 2017 and though this writ petition was filed in the year 2018, but it was defective and the defects were only removed on 12.12.2022. The copy of the writ petition was served on learned State Counsel only in the year 2023. This clearly indicates how the petitioner, who is an advocate, is interested in conducting his own case. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner, with a view to malign to opposite party no.9, has filed this frivolous writ petition. When this Court proposed to impose cost on filing of the frivolous writ petition, at that point of time, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed, as withdrawn.
.……………………………