1. Heard Sri E. Manohar, learned Senior Counsel and Sri Ch. Samson Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Rachana S. Waddepalli, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri N.V. Suryanarayana Murthy, learned Senior Counsel and Sri B.P. Mohan, learned counsel for the third respondent.

2. The petitioner, represented by its Public Relations Officer, claims that Sri T. Seshagiri Rao, its Director earlier worked with Regency Ceramics Limited and differences between that company and the petitioner company led to C.C.No.759 of 2003, on the file of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, against Sri T. Seshagiri Rao and others. In the said case, a direction was given to the Inspector of Police, Abids, Hyderabad, to search for the alleged stolen material belonging to the complainant therein in the premises of the accused therein and to take custody of any suspected stolen material, if found, to produce the same before the IV Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court. The third respondent, who was the then Inspector of Police, Abids, Hyderabad, was alleged by the petitioner to have abused the order of the Court in conducting the search and seizure through six to seven persons belonging to Regency Ceramics Limited and to have taken away material belonging to the petitioner company described in detail in the writ affidavit. The computer of the petitioner was also said to have been taken away along with its software and accounts details resulting in the petitioner filing a complaint before the IV Metropolitan Magistrate under the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Sections 190 and 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The said complaint in C.C.(SR).No.8922 of 2003 was disposed of by the Metropolitan Magistrate by an order, dated 16.10.2003, by which the learned Magistrate stated that on account of the prima facie case made available, cognizance could be taken against the accused, but subject to the sanction for prosecution against the first accused by the concerned authorities and the matter could be considered for taking cognizance and proceeding with trial on obtaining the required sanction for prosecution against the first accused by the complainant from the concerned authorities within the period of limitation. The petitioner claimed to have made an application before the authorities seeking such sanction to prosecute the third respondent and the inaction of the authorities was questioned in W.P.No.5705 of 2004, in which on 25.03.2004 the first respondent was directed to pass appropriate orders on the application of the petitioner within four weeks. The first respondent, having not passed any such orders, resulted in contempt notice from the petitioner, in response to which the first respondent served the impugned order, dated 10.06.2004, on 26.06.2004. The order is contrary to the findings of the Metropolitan Magistrate and the findings of the first respondent in the impugned order are unsustainable about adequate care being taken while conducting the searches and submitting a report to the Magistrate and further about the allegations in the representation of the petitioner being not true. The petitioner, therefore, desired that the failure to accord sanction of the prosecution of the third respondent be declared as illegal and colourable exercise of power, etc., and directing the first respondent to accord sanction for prosecution of the third respondent.

3. The first respondent, in his counter, had stated that in obedience of the directions of the Court in C.C.No.759 of 2003, dated 23.07.2003, the third respondent carried out the search and seized the materials detailed in the counter affidavit. The seizure of every item by the third respondent was in relation to C.C.No.759 of 2003 and the first respondent examined the issue thoroughly and found that there was no need to accord sanction to prosecute the third respondent, as there was ample evidence to confirm the bona