JUDGMENT : A. Muhamed Mustaque, J. 1. Petitioner is a member of Scheduled Cast community. Alleging atrocity against the petitioner's family, he filed complaint Nos. CMP 295/2013, 3108/2013, 2894/2013 and 336/2014 before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Perumbavoor under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Central Government framed and notified the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules 1995, provides for free legal aid to the victims of atrocities with the assistance of an eminent Senior Advocate for conducting cases in Special Courts. Rule 4(5) is extracted herewith: "Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), the District Magistrate or the Sub Divisional Magistrate may, if deem necessary or if so desired by the victims of atrocity engage an eminent Senior Advocate for conducting cases in the Special Courts on such payment of fee as he may consider appropriate". 2. The District Magistrate has to take a decision in the matter or the Sub Divisional Magistrate. Petitioner approached the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate forwarded the same to the District Officer of Scheduled Caste Development Department, the third respondent herein. The third respondent by Ext.P5 rejected the same stating that the request of the petitioner can only be acceded based on the permission of the Court. Petitioner challenging Ext.P5 has approached this Court. 3. Learned Special Government Pleader submits that this matter has reached only committal stage and not committed to the Special Court. It is only a private complaint initiated by the petitioner. It is only after investigation and final report is received, it will be committed to the Special Court and appropriate decision will be taken when matter reaches the Special Court after committal proceedings. 4. However, though legal proceedings as such pointed out by the learned Government Pleader is correct, nevertheless the action impugned before this Court is unsustainable as decision has to be taken by the second respondent in terms of the above Rules. Further Rules are framed when the Special Courts were taking cognizance of the case based on any complaint or charge sheet directly laid before the Special Court. However, in view of the decision in Gangula Ashok v. State of A.P (2000 KHC 108), no special court cannot take cognizance of any offence without being committed to that Court. As rightly pointed out Dr. However, in view of the decision in Gangula Ashok v. State of A.P (2000 KHC 108), no special court cannot take cognizance of any offence without being committed to that Court. As rightly pointed out Dr. Pradeep for the petitioner, Rules are framed to provide assistance to the victims in all stages from complaint to the trial, and therefore assistance required to be provided from the committal proceedings itself. I do see force in the argument if the purposive interpretation is given to the Rule, intention is clear as to provide assistance to victims to conduct the case which includes committal stage also. Rules could not visualise situation of committal proceedings as in the year, 1995. When Rules framed practise hitherto the Special Court itself takes cognizance of the offence based on the complaint or charge sheet. Therefore, Ext.P5 is set aside. Considering the objectives of appointment of an eminent lawyer under Rule 4(5) of the Rules, I am of the view, eminent lawyer has to be appointed before the Court where the committal proceeding is pending. Hence without awaiting committal proceedings reaches the Special Court, a Senior Advocate shall be appointed. Therefore, decision shall be taken by the District Magistrate in appointing an eminent lawyer within a period of six weeks in terms of Rule 4(5) of the Rules from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.