The distinction between 'consent' and 'sanction' under the DSPE Act was clarified, emphasizing that consent does not require a detailed order or application of mind, and the principles of res judicata apply to similar prior rulings.

JUDGMENT

1. This writ petition filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for issue a writ, in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, quashing the Government Order bearing No.E-HD/40/COD/2019 dtd. 25/9/2019 issued by the 2nd respondent by according sanction for prosecution to the 3rd respondent-CBI to investigate the alleged offences committed by the petitioner under the provision of Prevention of Corruption Act (herein after referred as to ' PC Act ').

2. Heard Sri. Udaya Holla, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned SPP-II appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri P. Prasanna Kumar, learned Special Counsel appearing for respondent No.3.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he is the sitting MLA and the President of the Karnataka Pradesh Congress Party and he is said to be doing various business including mining and real estate development. There was raid conducted by the income tax department officials on 2/8/2017 on the various premises of the petitioner in New Delhi and other places and they collected Rs.8, 59, 69, 100.00. It is alleged that Rs.41.00 lakhs was recovered form the premises of the petitioner. Subsequently, the income tax department officials registered a case by filing a complaint against the petitioner before the Special Court for Economic Offences under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Based upon registering the income tax case, the Directorate of Enforcement (hereinafter referred to as 'ED') also registered a case in No.ECIR/04/HQ/2018 and subsequently, the petitioner was arrested on 3/9/2019. Thereafter, the office of the Special Director of ED issued a letter dtd. 9/9/2019 to the State Government by acting under Sec. 66(2) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'PML Act'). The letter has been sent to the Chief Secretary of Government of Karnataka and the Government of Karnataka accorded sanction against the petitioner referring the matter to the CBI for investigating the case for offences punishable under the provisions of PC Act, 2018 vide its order dtd. 25/9/2019, which is under challenge.

4. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the State Government while passing the impugned order, referring investigation to CBI, has not applied its mind. While passing the said order, the State Government has simply narrated the contents of the letter issued by the ED and referred the case to the CBI and in turn, the CBI registered an FIR against the petitioner, which is not sustainable under law. Previously, one Shashi Kumar Shivanna filed a writ petition challenging the reference order in W.P. No.8316/2020, which came to be dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench, on 22/7/2020, on the ground the said person has no locus standi and he was not an accused in the offence. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner, being an accused, has right to challenge the very same order and, therefore, the question of res-judicata does not apply as the dispute is between some other persons and not between the petitioner and the respondent.

5. The learned Senor Counsel has also contended that out of five cases registered against the petitioner by the income tax department officials, the petitioner was discharged in three cases and the same was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In one case, the discharge application came to be dismissed, which is stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. This fact has not been considered by the State Government while according sanction. It is also contended that even if it is an administrative order. The State is required to apply its mind while granting any sanction. Except culling out the letter of the ED, there is no application of mind while referring the matter to the CBI. Therefore, the order under challenge, dtd. 25/9/2019, is not sustainable under law. Hence, prayed for quashing the same.

6. In support of hi