ORDER P.K. Musahary, J. Heard Mr. A Zhimoml, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. L.S. Jamir, learned senior Government Advocate for the official Respondents. 1. These two Writ Petitions raise common issues, both in facts and law, and have been heard and considered together, they are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. For the sake of convenience, the essential facts are being noted from WP (Crl.) No. 2(K) of 2007. 2. Looking back a little. Prior to formation of the State of Nagaland on 1.12.1963, the only enactment concerning the conduct of the Government servants was the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, which was in force in the erstwhile Nagaland Hills Tuensang Areas of both Kohima and Mokokchung Districts. It was vide Assam Regulation No. XII of 1951 and vide Act 3 of 1951, the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (now amended in 1988), came into force in the Naga Hills Tuensang in the District of Kohima and Mokokchung respectively vide Assam Government's Notification No. L. 19/47 GS dated 8.5.47 and subsequently enforced in Tuensang District vide Act 3 of 1951. In order to fight corruption, the Government of Nagaland vide its Resolution No. CON-58/75 dated 9.4.1976 decided to set up a State Vigilance Commission to be headed by State Vigilance Commissioner from among retired Judges of High Court or retired Senior Executive Officers for the whole State of Nagaland with powers, amongst others, to enquire into the complaints' of corruption, misconduct, lack of integrity or other kinds of malpractices or misdemeanours on the part of the public servants including the members of All India Services and to make recommendation as may be appropriate to the Government. 3. The Government of Nagaland vide Notification No. LAW/ACT- III/2004 dated 6.7.2005 appointed/designated the Deputy Commissioner (Judl.), Dimapur as the Special Judge for the whole State of Nagaland to try all offences triable by the Special Judge committed to the State of Nagaland and investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment. The last Notification being No. LAW/ACT-III/2004 dated 12.3.2005 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) appointing/designating one Sri L. K. Achumi, Deputy Commissioner (Judl), Dimapur. The last Notification being No. LAW/ACT-III/2004 dated 12.3.2005 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) appointing/designating one Sri L. K. Achumi, Deputy Commissioner (Judl), Dimapur. As per the said Resolution, the Commission shall have the following wings: (a) Director of Vigilance of Anti-corruption to be headed by a person not below the rank of Superintendent of Police who will be assisted by such number of Deputy Superintendents of Police and officials of other rank as may be considered necessary by the Government of Nagaland in consultation with the Vigilance Commissioner. (b) Tribunal for departmental proceedings. (c) Law Officer. (d) Technical Officer. In terms of the said Resolution, the Government of Nagaland created one post of Tribunal for departmental proceedings vide Notification No. CON. 146/76 dated 3.11.1976 (Annexure-C to the writ petition) and vide Notification No. LAW/ACT-18/87 dated 23.3.2007 (Annexure-E to the writ petition) appointed the Tribunal for departmental proceedings in the Vigilance Commission as the Special Judge within the jurisdiction of the State of Nagaland to try any offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as PC Act) investigated by the Police Station of the Vigilance Commission, which is under challenge in these writ petitions. By a Notification issued under No. CON-248/75 dated 1.6.1976, the Government of Nagaland declared Director of Vigilance and Anti-corruption to be the Police Station and by a subsequent Notification No. CON-248/75 dated 21.8.1999 declared the Director of Vigilance and Anti-corruption to be the Officer In-charge of the Vigilance Police Station for the whole State of Nagaland with Head Quarter at Kohima. By the Same Notification, he shall be deemed to be the Police Officer of the Vigilance Police Station and shall have jurisdiction and power to investigate into the offences punishable under the following Sections of law:- 1. All offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 2. Sections 406 - 409 IPC and 417 - 420 IPC 3. Sections 471 - 477A IPC 4. All offences under the Official Secrets Act, 1923 5. All offences under the Assam Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1947 6. Attempts, abetments and conspiracies of offences in Items 1 to 5 above, by whosoever committed. 7. Any other particular offence or offences that may be specified by the State Government. Sections 471 - 477A IPC 4. All offences under the Official Secrets Act, 1923 5. All offences under the Assam Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1947 6. Attempts, abetments and conspiracies of offences in Items 1 to 5 above, by whosoever committed. 7. Any other particular offence or offences that may be specified by the State Government. Based upon the local print media report, the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Police Officer, Kohima filed a suo motu FIR on 27.5.2005, which was registered as R/C-2/05 against the Petitioner No. 3 Mr. Imnaonen and the Controller of Examinations, Nagaland Public Service Commission. After Investigation, charge sheet was laid on 3.8.2005 against 8 persons Including the petitioner. The Proforma Respondent Nos. 7, 8 and 9 are the other co-accused in the said case. On charges being framed, the prosecution started adducing evidence and on 4.4.2007, the last date fixed for evidence, as many as 8, out of 17 witnesses named in the charge sheet have been examined fixing 18.5.2007 as the next date for further evidence. But, in the meantime, the Deputy Commissioner (Judl.), Dimapur, who was earlier appointed/designated as the Special Judge of the Tribunal for Departmental Proceedings in the Vigilance Commission (TDP in short) vide Govt. Notification dated 23.3.2007, transferred the said case along with other cases pending in his court vide order dated 16.4.2007 (Annexure-F to the writ petition). This order transferring the cases is also under challenge in these writ petitions. The Deputy Commissioner (Judl) Dimapur has, in the meantime, made over the cases including the case i.e. R/C-2/05 to the Deputy Commissioner (Vigilance) and Special Judge, TDP, Nagaland vide his letter No. DC(J) dated 18.4.2007 (Annexure-G to the writ petition). 4. Mr. A Zhimomi, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Deputy Commissioner (Judl.), Dimapur was appointed as the Special Judge vide Notification dated 12.3.2005 issued by the State Government in exercise of powers under Section 3(1) for the whole State of Nagaland. Thereafter, the State Government designated the same Deputy Commissioner (Judl), Dimapur as the Special Judge to try all offences triable by the Special Judge committed in the State of Nagaland and investigated by Delhi Special Police Establishment vide Notification dated 6.7.2005. Then again, State Government vide Notification dated 23.3.2007 appointed the same Deputy Commissioner (Judl), Dimapur as the Tribunal for Departmental Proceedings in the Vigilance Commission, Nagaland. According to Mr. Then again, State Government vide Notification dated 23.3.2007 appointed the same Deputy Commissioner (Judl), Dimapur as the Tribunal for Departmental Proceedings in the Vigilance Commission, Nagaland. According to Mr. Zhimomi, the impugned Notification dated 23.3.2007 appointing the TDP as the Special Judge under the PC Act Is bad in law on the following grounds: 1. That the TDP is not a criminal court as contemplated under the PC Act, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Nagaland Judicial Service Rules, 2006. 2. Even assuming that the TDP is a criminal court, since it has no independent existence of the Vigilance Commission the rights of the petitioners to a free, fair and impartial trial would stand vitiated. 5. The next submission of Mr. Zhimomi is that the vigilance Commission was created by an earlier decision adopted by Resolution dated 9.4.1976 and Clause 9 of the said Resolution provides as follows: 9. The Vigilance Commission shall have the following wings: (a) Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (b) Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings (c) Law Officer (d) Technical Officer Ad hoc appointment of specialists when Engineering or Accountancy questions arise for consideration (for the present, it is not necessary to have a Law Officer or Technical Officer and they may be appointed in due course as and when necessity arises). According to Mr. Zhimomi, this Clause clearly shows that the TDP is one of the wings in the State Vigilance Commission and it is a part and parcel of the State Vigilance Commission without having any independent existence. The TDP is also the Deputy Commissioner (Vigilance) and therefore, this would mean that the said office is functioning in three capacities, namely, (a) Deputy Commissioner (Vigilance), (b) Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings and (c) Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 6. Mr. Zhimomi further submits that the case i.e. R/C-2/05 was registered against the petitioner suo motu by the Police Station of Vigilance Commission and the same was investigated by an Officer of the Vigilance Commission. The trial has also been handled by an Officer of the Vigilance Commission. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State Respondents the same has not been denied. The trial has also been handled by an Officer of the Vigilance Commission. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State Respondents the same has not been denied. Therefore, apart from the grounds that the Tribunal is not a criminal court and cannot be appointed/designated as a Special Judge under the PC Act, the petitioners cannot expect free, fair and impartial trial as guaranteed by the Constitution of India and the laws framed thereunder. Further, the principles of natural justice that no man can be a Judge in his own cause has been violated by the impugned Notification. 7. Mr. L.S. Jamir, learned senior Govt. Advocate, Nagaland counters the above submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners and makes the following submissions based on the counter affidavit filed by the State Respondents as follows: (1) Earlier the District Magistrates/Deputy Commissioners are designated as Special Judge under the PC Act. The Special Judge, so designated, conducts trials of cases under the PC Act, which are Investigated by the CBI and the State Police. There are about 12 cases under the PC Act investigated by the CBI scattered over different Districts in the State. The accused persons and prosecution witnesses are mostly posted out of the North East Region and the accused as well as PWs did not find it convenient and safe to appear before the several designated Courts and accordingly, the CBI requested the State to constitute a single Special Court in the State to try all cases under PC Act and investigated by the CBI and accordingly, Notification dated 12-3-2005 (Annexure-A to the writ petition) was issued appointing the Deputy Commissioner (Judl), Ditnapur as a Special Judge for the whole State of Nagaland. (2) There were confusion to the fate of the PCA cases investigated under the PC Act by the State Law enforcing Agency and accordingly by order No. LAW/ACT-III/2004 dated 6.7.2005 the Court of Deputy Commissioner (Judl), Dimapur was notified as Special Judge for the State of Nagaland to try offences investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment and accordingly the deficiency in the Notification dated 12.3.2005 was clarified by Notification dated 6.7.2005 and there are at present three categories of Special Judge appointed under the PC Act and they are - (a) The Deputy Commissioner of Districts to try all regular cases investigated by the State Police within their District jurisdiction, (b) Special Judge-Deputy Commissioner (Judl), Dimapur to try all PCA cases investigated by the CBI, and (c) The Special Judge in the Vigilance Commission to try all cases investigated by the Vigilance Commission Police Station and all other cases investigated by the Crime Branch of Police Head Quarter. 8. According to Mr. Jamir, the State Government in exercise of powers under Section 3(1) of the PC Act appointed the TDP as the Special Judge. The TDP is a quasi-judicial Body for conducting the enquiries but for trial of PCA cases investigated by the Crime Branch Police HQ and Police Stations of Vigilance Commission, he is designated as Deputy Commissioner (Judl) and Special Judge under the PC Act and as such there is no infirmity in the impugned Notification dated 23.3.2007 issued by the Government appointing the Tribunal for Departmental Proceedings in the Vigilance Commission as Special Judge. 9. Further Mr. Jamir, learned Sr. Govt. Advocate submits that under Rule 15(b) of the Rules of Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland, 1937 (hereinafter referred to as Rules of 1937), the term District Magistrate/Addl. District Magistrate etc. are construed as the Deputy Commissioner/Addl. Deputy Commissioner of the said District. As such, in consonance with the above provisions under Section 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the State Government brought out the Notification No. LAW/82/70/BOL-III dated 19.7.1975 by which it is provided that until the Courts of Session or Sessions or the Judicial Magistrate are constituted in the State of Nagaland, they be construed as references to the District Magistrate or Addl. District Magistrate. 10. Last of all, Mr. District Magistrate. 10. Last of all, Mr. Jamir submits that the case No. R/C-2/05 and R/C-4/06 were transferred to the Court of Special Judge, TDP in the Vigilance Commission in view of the fact that it was investigated by the Police Station of the Vigilance Commission and as because the Deputy Commissioner (Judl.) ceased to have jurisdiction to try the said case after issuance of the impugned Notification dated 23.3.2007. The TDP and the Police Station of Vigilance Commission were under the Administrative control of the Personnel and Administrative Reform Department and as such it may be construed that the petitioners are prosecuted, tried and judged by the same entity but the post of Special Judge of TDP in the Vigilance Commission is encadrer to the Nagaland Judicial Magistrate under the law and Judicial Department and their posting, transfer etc. are also controlled by the Department of Law and Justice vide Notification No. PER/Vig/ 1/13/04 dated 16.5.2006 and therefore the allegation that the petitioners are prosecuted and tried by the same entity is not correct. The appointment of TDP as a Special Judge was made on 23.3.2007 i.e. after the TDP was kept under Administrative Control of Law and Justice Department and as such the aforesaid allegation is not correct and as such the apprehension of the petitioners that a free, fair and impartial trial may not be afforded to them is without any basis. 11. In his reply to the above, Mr. Zhimomi, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Government of Nagaland framed Nagaland Judicial Service Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to Rules of 2006) which was given effect vide Notification No. LAW/322/79(Pt-I) dated 28.2.2007 from the date of Notification. The said Rules prescribes the manner in which the appointments are to be made to the judicial service. The post of Special Judge is also included in the said Rules. The Rule of 2006 provides that appointment of Special Judge shall be made by the High Court. Section 3 of the PC Act also lays down that no person shall be appointed as a Special Judge under the Act unless he is or has been a Sessions Judge or an Addl. Sessions Judge or an Assistant Sessions Judge under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Section 3 of the PC Act also lays down that no person shall be appointed as a Special Judge under the Act unless he is or has been a Sessions Judge or an Addl. Sessions Judge or an Assistant Sessions Judge under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Code of Criminal Procedure read with Rules of 2006 specifically provides that the appointment of Special Judge shall be made by the High Court. The Notification dated 16-5-2007 and the impugned Notification dated 23-3-2007 have not been issued by the High Court. The TDP has never been a Sessions Judge or Addl. Sessions Judge and Assistant Sessions Judge until issuance of the impugned Notification and the same is ex-facie illegal and liable to be quashed/cancelled. 12. On examination of materials placed by the parties before this Court, it is found that the Deputy Commissioner (Judl), Dimapur in Nagaland has been appointed as the (1) Deputy Vigilance Commissioner, (2) Special Judge and (3) Tribunal for Departmental Proceedings in the Vigilance Commission under the provisions of PC Act read with certain provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A question has arisen whether it is legal and authorized to appoint the Deputy Commissioner (Judl.) Dimapur, who is or has not been a Sessions Judge, Addl. Sessions Judge within the meaning of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as Special Judge under the PC Act and whether such appointment is also in violation of the provisions of Nagaland Judicial Service Rules, 2006. 13. Section 1(2) provides that the Code of Criminal Procedure extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu & Kashmir and it shall not apply to the State of Nagaland and Tribal areas but the concerned State Government may, by Notification, apply such provisions or any of them to the whole or part of the State of Nagaland or such tribal areas as the case may be within such supplementary, incidental or consequential modification, as may be specified in the Notification. 14. 14. Although there have been recommendations of the Law Commission for separation of Judiciary from the Executive on all India basis in order to achieve uniformity in this matter, such separation of judiciary from the Executive did not take place in the State of Nagaland and the Executive Officers, namely, the Deputy Commissioner and his Subordinates have been functioning as Judicial Officers and have been exercising the powers as Sessions Judge, Addl. Sessions Judge and Assistant Sessions Judge and District Magistrate till recently. The Government of Nagaland has framed the Nagaland Judicial Service Rules, 2006 in consultation with the Gauhati High Court to effect the separation of Judiciary from the Executive. To achieve the said end, the Govt. of Nagaland has also issued Notification No. LAW/ACT-13/97 dated 22.5.2008. But there is no denying the fact that the Deputy Commissioners in the State of Nagaland have been exercising the powers, functions and jurisdiction of Sessions Judge under the Code of Criminal Procedure till the aforesaid Rules were framed and the Notification was issued. 15. With the enforcement of the PC Act in the State of Nagaland the necessity for appointment of Special Judge was felt by the Government of Nagaland and the Notification dated 6.7.2005 was issued under Section 3(1) of the PC Act read with Rule 16(b) of the Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland, 1937 designating the Court of Deputy Commissioner (Judl.), Dimapur as the Special Judge for the whole State of Nagaland to try all offences triable by the Special Judge committed in the State of Nagaland and investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment. 16. From the pleadings in the writ petitions it is understood that the petitioners are not at all against the extension of provisions under the PC Act in the State of Nagaland. They have expressed no grievance against the first Notification dated 12.3.2005 issued by the Government appointing Shri LK Achumi, Deputy Commissioner (Judl), Dimapur as a Special Judge in addition to his duties for the whole State of Nagaland to try offences under the PC Act as per the power given under Section 3(1)read with Rule 15(B) of the Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland, 1937 and Section 5(3)of the Code of Criminal Procedure since the petitioners submitted themselves before the jurisdiction of the said Court of Special Judge by facing trial before it. 17. 17. The aforesaid Notification dated 12-3-2005 was superseded by a fresh Notification dated 6-7-2005 by designating the Court of Deputy Commissioner (Judl), Dimapur as Special Judge for the whole State of Nagaland to try all offences committed in the State of Nagaland and investigated by Delhi Special Police Establishment and triable by a Special Judge. The aforesaid Notification dated 6-7.-2005 was issued by the Government of Nagaland under the same provisions of law namely Section 3(1) of the PC Act read with 15(B) of the Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland and Section 5(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are also not at all against this new Notification. They are prepared to continue to stand trial in the Court of Deputy Commissioner (Judl), Dimapur, who has been designated as Special Judge by the said Notification dated 6.7.2005. So far so good. 18. The whole scenario changed as soon as the Government appointed a Tribunal for Departmental Proceedings in the Vigilance Commission, Nagaland as the Special Judge within the State of Nagaland to try any offences punishable under the PC Act including any conspiracy to commit or any attempt to commit or abatement of any of the offences under the PC Act vide impugned Notification dated 23.3.2007 in purported exercise of powers under Section 3(1) of the PC Act read with R. 15(b) of the Rules of Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland, 1937 and Section 1(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There is no recitation or mention in the impugned Notification that the earlier Notification dated 6.7.2005 has been cancelled/withdrawn or superseded in any manner. Based on this new impugned Notification dated 23.3.2007, the Deputy Commissioner (Judl), Dimapur, who was functioning as Special Judge transferred the pending cases including the case i.e. R/C-2/05 and R/C-4/06 to the Tribunal for Departmental Proceedings in the Vigilance Commission vide impugned order dated 16.4.2007. The petitioners refuse to submit themselves before the said Tribunal. The same is discernible from the prayers made in the writ petitions which is quoted below for better understanding: A. Quash and set aside: (i) Notification bearing No. LAW/ACT-18/87 dated 23.03.07. (ii) Order dated 16.4.07 issued in RC-2/05 by the Special Judge, Dimapur, Nagaland. The petitioners refuse to submit themselves before the said Tribunal. The same is discernible from the prayers made in the writ petitions which is quoted below for better understanding: A. Quash and set aside: (i) Notification bearing No. LAW/ACT-18/87 dated 23.03.07. (ii) Order dated 16.4.07 issued in RC-2/05 by the Special Judge, Dimapur, Nagaland. B. Direct the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings in the Vigilance Commission, i.e., the respondent No. 6 to forthwith return RC-2/05 to the Court of the Special Judge, Dimapur, Nagaland for disposal in accordance with law. 19. This Court is called upon to examine a limited question as to whether the Deputy Commissioner (Judl.) Dimapur has been assigned/designated to function, as the Tribunal for Departmental Proceedings in the Vigilance Commission vide impugned Notification dated 23-3-2007 in addition to powers and functions already assigned on being appointed as a Special Judge under the PC Act vide earlier Notification dated 12-2-2005 and 6-7-2005 and thus the same authority i.e. the Deputy Commissioner (Judl.), Dimapur is functioning in three capacities namely, (i) the Deputy Commissioner (Vigilance), (ii) the Tribunal for Departmental Proceedings and (iii) Special Judge under the PC Act and if it is so whether it is authorized and legal under the law. 20. The said Resolution No. CON.58/75 says that the Government of Nagaland decided to set up a State Vigilance Commission, which will be headed by the State Vigilance Commissioner. The Resolution does not provide for appointment of a Deputy Commissioner (Vigilance). No record has been placed to show that the appointment of Deputy Commissioner (Vigilance) has been provided by subsequent Resolution or Government Notification or Circular but while transferring and forwarding the case records the Deputy Commissioner (Judl.), Dimapur addressed a letter dated 18.4.2007 to the Deputy Commissioner (Vigilance) and Special Judge, TDP, Nagaland, Kohima. This establishes the fact that there is a post designated as Deputy Commissioner (Vigilance) and the said Deputy Commissioner (Vigilance) is the Special Judge, TDP attached to the Vigilance Commissioner, which is also serving as Special Judge under the PC Act in the capacity of Deputy Commissioner (Judl), Dimapur. This establishes the fact that there is a post designated as Deputy Commissioner (Vigilance) and the said Deputy Commissioner (Vigilance) is the Special Judge, TDP attached to the Vigilance Commissioner, which is also serving as Special Judge under the PC Act in the capacity of Deputy Commissioner (Judl), Dimapur. The State Respondents in their affidavit in opposition do not admit this position but stated in paragraph 9 that "the TDP is a quasi-judicial body for conducting inquiries but for trial of PCA cases investigated by the Crime branch of PHQ and Police Station of the Vigilance Commission, he is designated as DC(J) and Special Judge under the PC Act". What emerges from this averment is that the same authority/person acts and exercises quasi-judicial power as Tribunal for the Departmental Proceeding in the Vigilance Commission and Special Judge as well exercising the full judicial power of a Sessions Judge under the PC Act. There should not, therefore, be any hesitation to come to a conclusion that the petitioners are subjected to being prosecuted, tried and judged by the same entity for the same allegations/offences claimed to be investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment in respect of cases referred to the Court of Special Judge appointed vide Notification dated 6.7.2005 and investigated by the Vigilance Commission Police Station in respect of cases referred to TDP appointed vide impugned Notification dated 23.3.2007. 21. The question involved is not really in regard to the petitioners being prosecuted, tried and judged by the same entity but to propriety in conducting the prosecution and trial of the petitioners in the court of Special Judge which is a court of original criminal jurisdiction appointed, admittedly, under the PC Act. The Apex Court has already declared in the case of A.R. Antulay vs. R.S. Nayak reported in 1984 Cri LJ 647 that the Court of Special Judge is a Court of original criminal jurisdiction as it is created under an independent statute namely, the PC Act, 1947 and it has been brought under the High Court as because Section 9 confers on the High Court all the powers conferred by Chapters XXXI and XXXIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure on a High Court as if the court of Special Judge were a court of Sessions trying cases without a jury within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the High Court. The purpose behind creation of Court of Special Judge under the PC Act can be found in the observations made by the Apex Court in paragraph 27 of the Antulay's Case (Supra), which is extracted below: While setting up a Court of a special Judge keeping in view the fact that the high dignitaries in public life are likely to be tried by such a Court, the qualification prescribed was that the person to be appointed as special Judge has to be either a Sessions Judge, Additional Sessions Judge or Assistant Sessions Judge. These three dignitaries are above the level of a Magistrate. After prescribing the qualification, the Legislature proceeded to confer power upon a special Judge to take cognizance of offences for the trial of which a special Court with exclusive jurisdiction was being set up. If a special Judge has to take cognizance of offences, ipso facto the procedure for trial of such offences has to be prescribed. Now the Code prescribes different procedures for trial of cases by different courts. 22. The aforesaid observations are fitting in to the present petitioners as some of them, if not all, are/were occupying high positions in the State and Central Government services and they are required to be tried by the Court of Special Judge constituted under the PC Act vide Notification dated 6.7.2005 alone and not by the TDP constituted vide impugned Notification dated 23.3.2007. This is because the former is a original criminal court having the power and jurisdiction of a regular court of a Sessions Judge under the Code of Criminal Procedure as discussed above and the later is a quasi-judicial body only as disclosed in the Government affidavit. This is more so because the petitioners themselves desire to be tried by the former court as they have already submitted before its jurisdiction and the ends of justice would be best served therein. 23. By the way what is TDP? This is admittedly one of the 4 wings of the State Vigilance Commission. A post of TDP was created as far back as in 1976 vide Government letter No. CON. 146/76 dated 3.11.1976. The Government, after a deep slumber of more than 30 years, appointed a Special Judge of the TDP to try the offences investigated by the Police Station of the Vigilance Commission. A post of TDP was created as far back as in 1976 vide Government letter No. CON. 146/76 dated 3.11.1976. The Government, after a deep slumber of more than 30 years, appointed a Special Judge of the TDP to try the offences investigated by the Police Station of the Vigilance Commission. There is no Notification/Order issued by the Government directing the concerned authorities to transfer or hand over the cases pending before the Special Judge constituted under the PC Act to the TDP. The indisputable position is that no notice was issued to any concerned parties including the petitioners before issuing the impugned order dated 16.4.2007 transferring the cases to the Court of TDP in the Vigilance Commissioner. The petitioners have not been provided with any opportunity of being heard before transferring the cases to the TDP, which is violative of basic principles of nature justice. 24. Although in the impugned order dated 23.3.2007 it is declared that the Special Judge, TDP is to try the offences investigated by the Police Station of Vigilance Commission, it is found from the Status Report of cases pending/action taken with effect from 2000-2006 (a part of Annexure-B to the writ petition), that the Vigilance Commission had initiated disciplinary action against as many as 121 Government Servants involved in the PC Cases and recovered and recommended recovery of huge amount to the tune of Rs. 68,23,534/-. Looking at the nature of proceedings pending, and nature of action taken so far by the TDP in the Vigilance Commission one may not wrong to call it a disciplinary authority in the State Vigilance Commission insofar as it is declared by the Government to be a 'quasi-judicial body' only like a Departmental Enquiry Committee rather than an original criminal court of sessions Judge. It is necessary to examine whether the TDP is a Tribunal within the meaning of Articles 136 and 227 of the Constitution of India or within the parameters of decision rendered by the Apex Court to bring home the distinction between the Court and Tribunal in the case of Harinagar Sugar Mills vs. Shyam Sundar reported in (1962) 2 SCR 339 which was reaffirmed in the case of Kihoto Hollohan vs. Zachillhu as reported in (1992) 1 SCR 686 . However, paragraph 98 of the later case is quoted below: But then is the Speaker or the Chairman acting under Paragraph 6(1) a Tribunal? However, paragraph 98 of the later case is quoted below: But then is the Speaker or the Chairman acting under Paragraph 6(1) a Tribunal? All tribunals are not courts, though all courts are tribunals. The word courts is used to designate those tribunals which are set up in an organized State for the Administration of Justice. By Administration of Justice is meant the exercise of judicial power of the State to maintain and uphold rights and to punish wrongs. Whenever there is an infringement of a right or any injury, the courts are there to restore the vinculum juris, which is disturbed. (See Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. Shyam Sundar Jhunjhunwala (1962) 2 SCR 339. In that case Hidayatullah, J. said: (SCR p.362) By Courts is meant courts of civil judicature and by 'tribunals', those bodies of men who are appointed to decide controversies arising under certain special laws. Among the powers of the State is included the power to decide such controversies. This is undoubtedly one of the attributes of the State, and is aptly called the judicial power of the State. In the exercise of this power, a clear division is thus noticeable. Broadly speaking, certain special matters go before tribunals, and the residue goes before the ordinary courts of civil judicature. Their procedures may differ but the functions are not essentially different. What distinguishes them has never been successfully established. Lord Stamp said that the real distinction is that the courts have 'an air of detachment'. But this is more a matter of age and tradition and is hot of the essence. Many tribunals, in recent years, have acquitted themselves so well and with such detachment as to make this test insufficient. 25. It is necessary only to choose between the "quasi-judicial body created by the impugned Notification dated 23.3.2007" and the "Court of Sessions Judge having power and jurisdiction of an Original Criminal Court of Sessions Judge created vide Notification dated 6.7.2007 both required to try the offences under the PC Act but investigated by different agencies. Considering the common object to fight corruption and to provide more effective and speedy trial of offences of corruption by public servants, it would be more laudable to choose the later forum i.e. Court of Special Judge which provides for trial by a Judge of the rank of a Sessions Judge under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Considering the common object to fight corruption and to provide more effective and speedy trial of offences of corruption by public servants, it would be more laudable to choose the later forum i.e. Court of Special Judge which provides for trial by a Judge of the rank of a Sessions Judge under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The added reasons for doing so is non-disclosure of grounds or the failure of the State Government to give the justification why the offences under the PC Act investigated by the Police Station of Vigilance Commissioner should be tried by the TDP. 26. For the reasons discussed above, I come to the conclusion that the forum created by the impugned Notification dated 23.3.2007 is superfluous as it has resulted in duplication of trial of PC cases despite being violative of the provisions under the Nagaland Judicial Service Rules, 2006 insofar as the Special Judge for TDP has been appointed on deputation without consulting the High Court and accordingly, the same is liable to be quashed. The forum provided for trial of PC Cases by appointing a Special Judge vide Notification dated 6.7.2005 is more laudable as the same is designated as an original criminal Court entrusted with powers and jurisdiction of a Sessions Judge under the Code of Criminal Procedure and would be more effective to fight the corruption. 27. In the result the impugned Notification dated 23.3.2007 and its consequential impugned order dated 16.4.2007 are hereby quashed. 28. The State Respondents are directed to return the case records received on transfer from Sri LK Achumi, Deputy Commissioner (Judl.), Dimapur to the Court of Special Judge constituted by Government Notification dated 6.7.2005 for completing the trial of the cases under the PC Act. 29. With the aforesaid observations and direction, these writ petitions stand allowed. Petition allowed.