Advocates ..'.. Appointment of Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) - Withdrawal/revocation of the appointment - Validity AB - Proceedings against the petitioners for allegedly having C assets disproportionate to their known income - Warrant case under the Prevention of Corruption Act - Respondent no.4 appointed as SPP - Seven months thereafter, when the trial was nearing completion, appointment of respondent no.4 withdrawn by the State Government - Notification purporting to revoke the appointment of respondent no.4 as SPP - Validity - Held: On facts, it is liable to be struck down - Appointment of respondent no.4 was made' by the Government without questioning the ability or suitability of the incumbent nor the government raised any issue in respect of E the manner/issue of consultation - If the Government found F the name of respondent no.4, which was sent by the Acting Chief Justice of the High Court, not acceptable on any ground, it was duty bound to refer the name back to the Acting Chief Justice along with views and suggestions, which was not done - On the contrary, they proceeded to appoint respondent no.4 as SPP without demur, who had already been a Public Prosecutor for several years - Nothing on record to indicate that the State Government had been forced by anyone to appoint respondent no. 4 - The Government voluntarily G acquiesced in the process and is now not entitled to raise · grievance - Further, the appointment continued un-objected for almost seven months - Though there is undoubted power with the Government to withdraw or revoke appointment within s,21 of the General Clauses Act, but that exercise of power appears to be vitiated in the present case by malafides in law inasmuch as it is apparent on record that the switch-over of government in between resulted in a sudden change of opinion for no discernable legally sustainable reason. The sharp transitional decision was an act of clear unwarranted indiscretion actuated by intention that does not appear to be founded on good faith - Order of removal of respondent no. 4 was a product of malafides - General Clauses Act, 1897 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.