TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 1318X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ort was lodged against him on or about 6.9.2001 under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Upon completion of investigation, the Vigilance Department sought for sanction from the competent authority so as to enable it to prosecute the respondent. By an order dated 15.12.2002, grant of such sanction was refused. The matter, however, was placed before the competent authority once again and on or about 14.9.2004 sanction to prosecute the respondent was granted. Questioning the legality and/or validity of the said order, the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. By reason of the impugned judgment, the said writ petition was allowed opining that the State has no power of revie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 162 thereof. Once a sanction is refused to be granted, no appeal lies there against. 7. Although the State in the matter of grant or refusal to grant sanction exercises statutory jurisdiction, the same, however, would not mean that power once exercised cannot be exercised once again. For exercising its jurisdiction at a subsequent stage, express power of review in the State may not be necessary as even such a power is administrative in character. It is, however, beyond any cavil that while passing an order for grant of sanction, serious application of mind on the part of the concerned authority is imperative. The legality and/or validity of the order granting sanction would be subject to review by the criminal courts. An order refusing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore were made not to grant sanction on the basis whereof the aforementioned order dated 15.12.2003 was passed. A finding of fact has been arrived at by the High Court that no material was placed before the competent authority. Only a communication had been received from the Director, Vigilance Bureau dated 22.6.2004 wherein reference of the letter dated 26.5.2004 was made. It, according to the High Court, was not a new material. In the aforementioned situation, the High Court, opined: Once the Government passes the order under Section 19 of the Act or under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, declining the sanction to prosecute the concerned official, reviewing such an order on the basis of the same material, which already s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... powered by the Governor in that behalf and the signature so made shall be deemed to be the proper authentication of such order or instrument... 12. In terms of the said Rules as also the Standing Order, the Minister of Rural Development and Panchayats is the competent authority to grant or refuse to grant sanction, so far as the respondent is concerned. 13. Before embarking on the rival contentions, we may also place on record that the Government of Punjab, Department of Vigilance had issued guidelines in terms whereof the grant of sanction by the Administrative Department may be refused; some of the provisions whereof read as under: 3. The cases should not be delayed at the level of administrative department when sent for prosec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vigilance Department is refused. The said order was signed by the Special Secretary, Government of Punjab. 16. Before us, however, it was contended that requisite clarification was made by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau on 17.12.2002 stating: Besides this Sh. Hans Raj Golden has no link with Vigilance Department. It is false that he is a tout of Vigilance Department. 17. However, it is stated that with the change in the Government and after more than nine months of the said refusal to grant sanction, the Vigilance Department again approached the concerned Secretary for grant of sanction by a letter dated 16.05.2004. The Deputy Secretary, Government of Punjab, Village Development and Panchayat Departmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he name of the Governor. Such orders, however, may be signed by any authorities specified in Rule 9 of the Rules of Business. By reason of either Rule 8 or Rule 9 of the Rules of Business, no substantive power is conferred. The Rules of Executive Business inter alia provided for three authorities before whom the records are to be placed, viz., Minister of the Department, Chief Minister and Cabinet. It has not been contended that in terms of the Rules of Executive Business read with the Standing Order, the Minister of the Department concerned could not have refused to grant sanction. What is contended before us is that Rule 8 of the Rules of Business should have been complied with. 20. It is now well-known that in the event it appears fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
