The court emphasizes that the purpose of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is to prevent unnecessary investigations against public servants and to ensure that the State Government has the discretion to decide whether an investigation is warranted. The court highlights that the approval granted under Section 17A does not imply guilt or prosecution.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner is before this Court challenging an approval accorded by the State Government for conducting an investigation against her under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for brevity, referred to as “the Act”).

2. The facts of the case are that a proposal was submitted by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, to the Government seeking approval to investigate Sri T. Shyam Bhat (the then Commissioner of the BDA) and Smt. Shreeroopa (the petitioner), who was working as Deputy Secretary-III in the Bangalore Development Authority (“the BDA”, for short).

3. It was stated that the site bearing No.617 measuring 40’ X 60’ had been allotted to one Sri. P. Bhaskar Reddy by the BDA in Sir. M. Vishweshwaraiah Layout, 5th Stage. Subsequently, an alternative site bearing No.1607/69 was allotted to him in the very same 5th Stage in place of Site No.617, and an allotment letter, along with a possession certificate were also issued. Subsequently, a Sale Deed was also executed in the year 2005 in favour of Sri. P. Bhaskar Reddy.

4. However, in the year 2012, as per the order of the Commissioner, six sites measuring 40’ X 60’ were converted into twelve sites measuring 30’ X 40’ and while doing so, without the approval of Sri Bhaskar Reddy, his site measuring 40’ X 60’ was also converted into 30’ X 40’ sites and was renumbered as site No.1609/69A before being allotted to one Puttalakshmamma. Similarly, other sites were also converted, and separate sub-numbers were assigned.

5. It was stated that the proposal to modify the layout and change the measurement of the sites had emanated from the office of the Executive Engineer and submitted to the office of the Commissioner, BDA, and that though 40’ X 60’ sites had already been allotted, without allotting alternative sites to such allottees, sites measuring 30’ X 40’ had been created and allotments were made to several persons, as a result of which, serious prejudice was said to have been caused to the original allottees and there was a suspicion that the officials of the BDA had gained unlawfully from the said exercise. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, therefore, sought approval of the State Government to investigate the then Commissioner Sri T. Shyam Bhat and also the present petitioner as provided under Section 17A of the Act.

6. The State Government, on consideration of the said proposal/request, came to the conclusion that a prima facie case had been made out, and therefore, it would be appropriate to accord approval for conducting an investigation as provided under Section 17A of the Act.

7. As stated above, it is this order of granting approval under Section 17A of the Act, which is being challenged by the petitioner in the instant case.

8. Sri D.R. Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has strenuously contended that the order of the State Government granting the impugned approval was without application of mind and could not, therefore, be sustained.

9. He placed strong reliance on the judgments rendered by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in W.P.No.8905/2022 connected with W.P.No.9183/2022 disposed of on 13.07.2022 and W.P.No.24073/2022 disposed of on 01.06.2023. He stated that this Court has laid down the law that the grant of prior approval requires serious application of mind and merely stating that the documents were perused or that a prima facie case was made out would not suffice for according approval under Section 17A of the Act.

10. He also contended that in the instant case, apart from mentioning the words “prima facie”, the order did not indicate any serious application of mind or consideration of the material that had been placed before the State Government and it was, hence, untenable.

11. In order to appreciate this contention and ascertain the legal position, it would be essential to have an overview of the provisions of the Act.

12. The Act has been divided into fi