Social Icons

Thursday, August 6, 2015


Reviewing or reconsidering of the earlier order refusing to grant sanction to prosecute a public servant is possible in a case where fresh materials have been collected by the investigating agency subsequent to the earlier order and placed before the sanctioning authority.

In this case, the petitioner, a public servant, while working as Deputy Electrical Inspector, was trapped by the Lokayukta Police, on 18.12.2010, while allegedly taking bribe money of Rs. 18,000/- from the 4th respondent, an electrical contractor. Upon completion of investigation, to prosecute the petitioner, sanction was sought, under S.19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) from respondent No. 1. Government of Karnataka, on the basis of the material placed by the Investigating Agency and on examination of the case, found no justification to grant the sanction. By order dated 28.03.2013, sanction for prosecution of petitioner was rejected.

Additional Director General of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, furnished clarification with reference to the said order of rejection and requested the 1st respondent to reconsider its decision and accord sanction. Government of Karnataka having reconsidered the matter and accorded sanction for prosecution of the petitioner, vide Government Order dated 03.07.2014, as at Annexure – A, this case was filed to quash the said order.

The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Shri L. Megha Naik Vs. State of Karnataka by its Principal Secretary to the Government, Energy Department, Bengaluru and others, followed the proposition law laid down in the case of Nishant Sareen. The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka held that if the respondent had any grievances against the first order, refusing to grant sanction, ought to have challenged the said order. The said order having been allowed to become final and the power of sanctioning authority being not of continuing character i.e., in the absence of any other fresh material, could not be exercised, the case/writ petition filed by the petitioner was allowed.

Prepared by: S. Hemanth