ORDER :

The case of the petitioner is as follows:

2. The petitioner had filed the complaint against the 4th respondent on the ground that the 4th respondent sought a bribe of Rs.20,000/- to see that no action was taken against the petitioner while he was working as the Chief Executive of large Size Cooperative Society, Pedapadu, West Godavari District. A trap is said to have been conducted against the 4th respondent, on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner and Crime No.12/RCT-EWG/2014 dated 02.08.2014 was also registered under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. After the successful trap of the 4th respondent, further investigation was taken up and sanctioning prosecution of the 4th respondent was also sought. At that stage, the case which had been filed before the A.C.B Court at Vijayawada had been transferred to the A.C.B Court, Rajamahendravaram and G.O.Ms.No.9 Agriculture and Cooperation (VIG.II) Department, dated 01.02.2017 was issued, sanctioning prosecution of the 4th respondent under various provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Thereafter, cognizance of the case was taken and numbered as C.C.No.116 of 2018.

3. It is further stated that even before sanction had been granted on 01.02.2017, the Vigilance Commissioner by his letter dated 24.06.2016 had informed the Special Chief Secretary to the Government that the matter had been reexamined, on account of various representations of the 4th respondent and an opinion had formed that the preponderance of evidence would not stand judicial scrutiny and therefore, it would be appropriate to initiate departmental proceedings, against the 4th respondent instead of prosecution.

4. While the case was pending before the Special Court, the 4th respondent is said to have submitted a representation on 19.06.2019 to withdraw the prosecution. On this basis, G.O.Ms.No.54 Agricultural and Cooperation (Vig-II) Department dated 14.04.2020 had been issued by the Government directing the Director General of A.C.B. to issue necessary instructions to the Public Prosecutor to withdraw the prosecution, against the 4th respondent. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said G.O.Ms.No.54 dated 14.04.2020, has approached this Court, by way of the present writ petition contending that the Government having accorded permission for prosecution of the 4th respondent cannot resile from that decision and direct withdrawal of the case against the 4th respondent.

5. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit in which it is stated that the Vigilance Commissioner, at the very inception of the case, had issued a Memo dated 20.09.2016, calling for departmental action under Rule 20 of the A.P.C.S.(CC&A) Rules 1991 inspite of which the trial Court passed an order dated 29.08.2016 insisting that the prosecution should obtain sanction from the Government to prosecute the 4th respondent and the same had been challenged in W.P.No.3761 of 2017. Even while, the challenge to the orders of the trial Court were pending, the Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.9 Agricultural and Cooperation (VIG-II) Department, dated 01.02.2017 granting sanction for prosecution, contrary to the earlier Memo of 20.09.2016. The 4th respondent contends that the validity of G.O.Ms.No.9 dated 01.02.2017 has also been challenged by the 4th respondent in W.P.No.4668 of 2017 and the same is still pending before this Court. It is further stated that this Court had also granted interim suspension of G.O.Ms.No.9, dated 01.02.2017 by order dated 10.02.2017 in W.P.M.P.No.5661 of 2017.

6. Sri P.Gangaiah Naidu learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the 4th respondent would submit that in view of Memo bearing No.6719/Vig.II(2)/2014 dated 20.09.2016, the Government ought not to have issued G.O.Ms.No.9 dated 01.02.2017 and that the Government had corrected this mistake, by issuing G.O.Ms.No.54 Agricultural and Cooperation (Vig-II) Department dated 14.04.2020 directing the withdrawal of the prosecution of the 4th resp