Omprakash Verma vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Shantanu Kemkar, J.—This order shall govern disposal of Writ Petitions No. 5193, 5816 and 5837 of 2009, Writ Petitions No. 11977 and 12001 of 2012, as the question of law involved in the aforesaid five petitions is identical. The petitioners of WPs No. 5193, 5816 and 5837 of 2009 are aggrieved by the order passed by the Secretary, Law & Legislative Affairs Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal granting sanction for prosecution against them u/s 19(1)(b)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and u/s 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for prosecuting them under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Sections 120-B, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 14, 15, 20 and 21 of the Madhya Pradesh Vinirdishta Bhrashta Acharan Nivaran Adhiniyam, 1982. The petitioners of WP No. 11977/2012 and WP No. 12001/2012 are aggrieved by the order passed by the Secretary, Law & Legislative Affairs Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal granting sanction for prosecution against them u/s 19(1)(b)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and u/s 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for prosecuting them under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

The questions, which have been raised by the petitioners in these petitions are that (i) when their parent department has refused to grant sanction, the Law & Legislative Affairs Department could not have accorded sanction for prosecution; (ii) while granting the sanction, the Law & Legislative Affairs Department has not paid any heed to the grounds on which the parent department of the petitioners had refused the sanction; and (iii) there was no material available with the Law & Legislative Affairs Department so as to implicate the petitioners for the offence for which the sanction was sought. In the circumstances, according to them, the impugned order granting sanction is vitiated. To buttress their contention, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had taken us through the orders passed by their parent department refusing to grant sanction, the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioners and the nature of duties and the responsibilities of the petitioners for discharging their official work.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and going through the impugned orders and the annexures, we find that the Law & Legislative Affairs Department while granting the impugned sanction for prosecution, exercised its powers under the Madhya Pradesh Government Business Allocation Rules, as would be clear from paragraph 2 of the order dated 16.07.2009 filed as Annexure P/7 in Writ Petition No. 5193/2009:-

Part-A Sub Clause 4 of the MP Government Business Allocation Rules as amended till 01.01.2009, is as under:-

Thus, when the Law & Legislative Affairs Department is empowered under the Rules, as aforesaid, to grant sanction, the refusal to grant sanction by the parent department is of no consequence. The Competent Authority for granting sanction being the Law & Legislative Affairs Department, the opinion of the parent department is not binding on the Law Department while considering the case for grant of sanction. Our this view finds support from the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court at Jabalpur on 18.03.2013 in Criminal Revision No. 1856/2012.

We find that the order of sanction is self-contained speaking order, which has been passed after due application of mind on the basis of material collected and brought before the Sanctioning Authority. There is no infirmity or any jurisdictional error in the impugned sanction order.

Needless to say that this Court cannot sit over the said findings recorded by the Sanctioning Authority as an appellate Court, and therefore, we refrain from going into the minute details of the allegations and from commenting upon the merits of the allegations levelled against the petitioners. If the petitioners feel that they have good case on merits, it is open for the petitioners to raise all contentions as may be available to them before the appropriate forum at appropriate stage.

In the circumstances, no case for interference in the impugned order of sanction for prosecution is made out.

The petitions fail and are hereby dismissed.

No orders as to costs