JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Ext.P6 order passed by the 1st respondent, refusing to appoint a Special Prosecutor under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [for short, 'the Act, 1989']. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: 2. Petitioner herein is the defacto complainant in S.C.No.86 of 2015 on the files of the SC/ST (POA) Exclusive Special Court, Manjeri. Petitioner being dissatisfied with the prosecutor, submitted Ext.P2 application before the 1st respondent to appoint an efficient and senior lawyer for conducting his case before the Special Court, in terms of Rule 4(5) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, as it stood amended in the year 2015. According to the petitioner, Ext.P2 application is rejected by the 1st respondent as per Ext.P6 order on unsustainable grounds, and without taking into account the fact that the appointment of lawyer at the choice of the victim under the aforesaid Act and Rules is a right protected thereunder. Therefore, the 1st respondent is not at liberty to decline such a relief when it is sought for by the victim. That apart, petitioner has submitted Ext.P7 application for disbursement of relief amounts as provided under Annexure-I of Schedule to the Rules, 1995, which is pending consideration and is getting unnecessarily delayed, and thus seeks appropriate directions therein also. 3. A statement is filed for and on behalf of the respondents by the Special Government Pleader, and among other contentions, it is stated that, the Special Prosecutor appointed by the Government has a standing of 41 years, whereas the Advocate sought to be appointed by the petitioner was enrolled as an Advocate only in the year 1994. It is also submitted thereunder that, Ext.P7 application submitted by the petitioner seeking monetary benefits is not entitled to be considered, since the Police has not submitted any charge under the aforesaid Act and Rules. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. Perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the respective parties. 5. In my considered opinion, the issue revolves around Ext.P6 order passed by the 1st respondent. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. Perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the respective parties. 5. In my considered opinion, the issue revolves around Ext.P6 order passed by the 1st respondent. Ext.P6 is passed by the 1st respondent, taking into account Rule 4(5) of Rules, 1995, which read thus: “(5) 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 or Exclusive Special Courts on such payment of fee as he may consider appropriate”. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 stipulates that: “the State Government, on the recommendation of the District Magistrate, shall prepare for each District a panel of such number of eminent senior advocates who have been in practice for not less than seven years, as it may deem necessary for conducting cases in the Special Courts and Exclusive Special Courts”. 6. According to the petitioner, petitioner is highly dissatisfied with the prosecution and the lethargic approach on the part of the prosecution, and is also dissatisfied with the competency of the present Public Prosecutor. It is also the case of the petitioner that, due to inefficiency on the part of the prosecution, petitioner had to engage a lawyer of his choice in order to call for certain relevant documents to substantiate the prosecution case on 09.05.2017, calling for the report and sketch with respect to the place of incident etc. as provided under Sec.15A(4) of the afore-specified Act, as it stood amended in 2015. Therefore, from the facts, it is crystal clear that the petitioner is vigilant about the conduct of his case and he wanted to prosecute the case effectively and properly, and it was thereupon that, petitioner has submitted Ext.P2 application before the District Magistrate in order to exercise the power conferred on him under Rule 4(5) of the Rules, 1995. Therefore, from the facts, it is crystal clear that the petitioner is vigilant about the conduct of his case and he wanted to prosecute the case effectively and properly, and it was thereupon that, petitioner has submitted Ext.P2 application before the District Magistrate in order to exercise the power conferred on him under Rule 4(5) of the Rules, 1995. As per Ext.P3, Ext.P2 application was rejected, which was challenged in W.P.(C) No.24359 of 2017, and this Court disposed of the writ petition by Ext.P4 judgment dated 27.07.2017, quashing Ext.P3 order and further directing the 1st respondent to consider the matter afresh and pass orders on Ext.P2 application within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. 7. According to the learned counsel, Ext.P4 judgment was forwarded to the 1st respondent along with Ext.P5 written statement, and thereafter, petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing and during hearing, petitioner has specifically pointed out his desire to engage a lawyer of his choice for conducting the case and also expressed the in-competency of the present Public Prosecutor in conducting the case. However, the 1st respondent, without appreciating the real circumstances existing in the matter, dismissed the application as per Ext.P6 order. It is also the case of the petitioner that, petitioner has submitted another application under Sec.15A(12) of Act, 1989 read with Sec.24(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to appoint a lawyer to assist the prosecution in the Sessions Case. The said application was allowed by providing one K.K. Abdullakutty, a senior lawyer at Manjeri Bar to assist the prosecution. According to the petitioner, the application for assistance permitted by the Sessions Court will not suffice the situation, and in order to have an efficient prosecution, appointment of a Special Prosecutor at the choice of the petitioner is to be made. 8. On the other hand, learned Special Government Pleader contended that, the entire aspects of the matter was examined by the 1st respondent taking into account the written statement filed by the petitioner and appreciating the arguments advanced by the petitioner at the time of hearing. Therefore, according to the learned Special Government Pleader, the contentions raised by the petitioner in the writ petition that it is without taking into account the real intricacies of the matter, 1st respondent has passed the impugned order cannot be sustained under law. 9. Therefore, according to the learned Special Government Pleader, the contentions raised by the petitioner in the writ petition that it is without taking into account the real intricacies of the matter, 1st respondent has passed the impugned order cannot be sustained under law. 9. I have gone through Ext.P6 order passed by the 1st respondent in extenso, and it is discernible from the same that the Prosecutor appointed by the State Government in order to conduct the case is having a standing of 40 years as civil and criminal lawyer. It was taking into account the case put forth by the petitioner and after making due enquiries, the 1st respondent has passed the order. Petitioner is not having a case that there is malafide action on the part of the 1st respondent or the 1st respondent has any manner of ill-will towards the petitioner. The 1st respondent was considering the matter in accordance with the power conferred on him as per Rule 4(5) of the Rules, 1995. Sufficient opportunity was provided to the petitioner and the aspects pointed out by the petitioner were enquired into by the 1st respondent. 10. The basic principles of natural justice and other legal recourse were undertaken by the 1st respondent. Therefore, in my considered opinion, Ext.P6 order was passed by the 1st respondent in accordance with law, and petitioner could not point out any patent arbitrariness, illegality or unfairness on the part of the 1st respondent, justifying interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also well settled that, the consideration of a writ court in a judicial review is whether the statutory authority has exercised the power conferred under law in accordance with law and without any malafides, arbitrariness or illegality. As is noticeable, there are no adverse legal circumstances existing, enabling this Court to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. Even though petitioner has a contention that, when an application is filed by a victim, it is imperative that it should be allowed, after appreciating the relevant rule, I am of the considered opinion that the word 'may' used thereunder signifies the discretion and leverage vested with the statutory authority under law. 11. Even though petitioner has a contention that, when an application is filed by a victim, it is imperative that it should be allowed, after appreciating the relevant rule, I am of the considered opinion that the word 'may' used thereunder signifies the discretion and leverage vested with the statutory authority under law. As noted above, the statutory authority has adjudicated the issue taking into account various pros and cons in the matter, and therefore, in my view, the findings rendered are in accordance with law. Further, on mere making of an application by a victim, the District Magistrate is not bound under law to allow the same without any adjudication. 12. Resultantly, the reliefs sought for by the petitioner against Ext.P6 order passed by the 1st respondent cannot be sustained under law. 13. Petitioner has a further case that Ext.7 application submitted by the petitioner seeking certain economic benefits in accordance with Schedule of Rules, 1995 is pending consideration. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that, a direction can be issued to the 1st respondent to take a decision on Ext.P7 application within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 1st respondent to finalise Ext.P7 application submitted by the petitioner, after providing an opportunity of hearing, at the earliest possible time, and at any rate, within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.