The High Court should consider the maintainability of the writ petition and the validity of sanction for prosecution simultaneously and decide them on merits and in accordance with the law.

JUDGMENT

Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.

Crl.A. No. 353 of 2007 @ S.L.P.(Crl.)No. 1307 of 2007

Leave granted.

The above appeal was filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi and the Director, C.B.I., New Delhi against the interlocutory judgment and order dated 21.2.2007 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P. (Crl.) No. 1401 of 2002 whereby the High Court directed inspection of records of the files relating to the grant of sanction for prosecution of respondent No.1 (Ashok Kumar Aggarwal) prior to the prosecution leading evidence in the trial Court.

Crl.A. No. .of 2007 @ S.L.P.(Crl.)No. 1326 of

2007

Leave granted.

This appeal was filed by the Union of India against the interlocutory judgment and order dated 21.2.2007 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P.(Crl.) No. 1401/2002 whereby the High Court granted inspection of the notings of the Finance Minister to the accused owing to the fact that the same had been adverted to in the affidavit filed by the appellant. By consent of the parties, both the appeals were taken up for hearing together.

We heard Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the appellants and Mr. Ram Jethmalani, learned senior counsel, appearing for respondent No.1. Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, learned ASG, invited our attention to the various proceedings and the orders passed thereon and also the impugned judgment dated 21.2.2007. He invited our attention to the earlier order passed by this Court on October 11, 2006 in Criminal Appeal No. 1038 of 2006 filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation against the very same first respondent. The said order reads thus:

"Leave granted.

Heard Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, learned Additional Solicitor General for the appellant and Mr. Ram Jethmalani, learned senior counsel appearing for the contesting respondent No.1, Mr. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal.

The appellants have filed the above appeal against the interlocutory order dated 25.4.2006 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Crl.Misc. No. 1653 of 2006 in W.P.(Crl.) No. 1401 of 2002. The impugned order reads thus:

"W.P.(Crl.)No. 1401/2002.

Rule.

Learned counsel Mr. Dayan Krishnan for respondents 1 and 2 submits that the admission of petition should not come in his way to object to the maintainability of the petition.

Mr. Jethmalani has no objection to that.

List the petition for hearing on 21st August,

2006.

Sd/-

Manomohan Sarin, Judge

J.M. Malik, Judge

April 25, 2006."

The matter was argued herein by both the learned senior counsel for some time. Later, both the learned senior counsel agreed that the High Court itself may be requested to dispose of the preliminary issued in regard to the maintainability of the writ petition as expeditiously as possible since the matter is pending before one forum or the other for a long time. It is represented that Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 1401/2002 is listed for hearing before the High Court on 30.10.2006. We, therefore, request the Honble Acting Chief Justice of the High Court to place this matter before a Division Bench to consider the question of maintainability of the writ petition on the same date itself. Liberty is reserved to both parties to approach the Division Bench for other reliefs as well. The Criminal Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Registrar General of the High Court of Delhi today itself.

Sd/-

(Dr. AR. Lakshmanan)

Sd/-

(Altamas Kabir)

New Delhi,

October 11,2006."

The grievance of learned Additional Solicitor General is that the High Court heard the matter on merits and directed the Department of Revenue to give inspection of confidential files pertaining to sanction granted for prosecution of respondent No.1 in spite of the specific direction of this Court to hear the matter on maintainability. He further submitted that the High Court erred in not appreciating that while exercising jur