2012 (3) TMI 583 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Sanction Order to Prosecute the Appellant.
2. Power of Review by the Sanctioning Authority.
3. Independent Application of Mind by the Sanctioning Authority.
4. Delay in Granting the Sanction.

Summary of Judgment:

Issue 1: Validity of the Sanction Order to Prosecute the Appellant
The appellant challenged the sanction order dated 16.09.2009 u/s 19(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act on the grounds that the same Authority had previously declined sanction twice, and there were no new materials to justify a change in decision. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, holding that the sanction was granted with independent application of mind and supported by reasons.

Issue 2: Power of Review by the Sanctioning Authority
The court reiterated that the Sanctioning Authority has the power to review its decision only if new materials come to light. The Supreme Court's decision in State of Himachal Pradesh V. Nishant Sareen, AIR 2011 SC 404, was cited, emphasizing that a change of opinion on the same materials is not permissible unless fresh materials are presented.

Issue 3: Independent Application of Mind by the Sanctioning Authority
The court found that the impugned sanction order was influenced by the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), as evidenced by letters dated 03.09.2009 and 04.09.2009, which were not disclosed to the appellant. The Sanctioning Authority's decision was not independent, as it was made under pressure from the CVC and CBI. The court emphasized that the grant of sanction must be a "solemn and sacrosanct act" based on independent application of mind, as established in R.S. Nayak V. A.R. Antulay, (1984) 2 SCC 183.

Issue 4: Delay in Granting the Sanction
The court noted that the sanction order for the alleged conduct during 2001-2002 was passed in 2005, with a delay of three years. This delay, combined with the lack of new materials, led the court to conclude that the sanction order was not valid.

Conclusion:
The court set aside the learned Single Judge's order, quashed the impugned sanction orders, and allowed the writ petition and writ appeal. The court emphasized that the Sanctioning Authority must act independently and cannot review its decision based on the same materials without new evidence.