Oral Judgment: (D.D. Sinha, J.)

1. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard Mr. Anand Jaiswal, Adv. for Petitioner, Mr.N.

W. Sambre, Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 and Mr. S. P. Dharmadhikari, Senior Counsel with Mr.D.V.Chauhan, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 3 & 4.

2. This petition is directed against the order dt. 12.9.2006 passed by the State of Maharashtra rejecting the application of petitioner for grant of sanction to prosecute respondent nos. 3 and 4 under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as the order dt. 6.9.2006 passed by the Collector, Nagpur. The petitioner, in addition to quashing of these orders, has also prayed that sanction may be granted to prosecute respondent nos. 3 and 4 for committing the alleged offence punishable under Section 95 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949.

3. Counsel for petitioner has submitted that a raid was conducted on the establishment of petitioner on 9.4.2000 under the supervision and directions of respondent nos. 3 and

4. During the course of raid, entire stock of liquor and cash from the hotel of petitioner was seized. The raiding party manhandled, abused and assaulted the persons who were present in the hotel, at the instance of respondent nos.3 and 4.

4. It is contended that, on the instructions of respondent no.3 and 4, the Police Authorities have registered offences against the petitioner under Sections 292, 294, 109, 176 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code; Sections 81, 84, 77-A of the Bombay Prohibition Act and Section 33(x) and Section 131 of the Bombay Police Act as well as Section 30 of the Arms Act. First Information Report bearing No. 3020 was registered on 10.4.2000 and criminal proceedings were initiated against the Directors of the establishment, the employees, the Artists who were performing as well as all the customers who were present at the relevant time. The petitioner and other Directors challenged the action of Police Authorities before this High Court by filing an application u/s. 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure bearing No. 414 of 2003, which was allowed by this High Court vide judgment dt. 4.4.2005 and the criminal proceedings initiated by the Police Authorities were quashed. The judgment of this Court was challenged by respondent no.1 and others before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by filing Special Leave Petition No. 4723 of 2005, which was dismissed vide order dt. 17.4.2006.

5. Mr. Anand Jaiswal, learned counsel has contended that, in the meanwhile, petitioner had made an application dt. 8.8.2000 before respondent nos.1 and 2 u/s. 146-A of the Bombay Prohibition Act for grant of sanction to prosecute respondent nos.3 and 4 for an offence punishable u/s. 95 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 did not take any steps in this regard and therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file Criminal Writ Petition No. 333 of 2006 before this Court. This Court was pleased to direct respondents to decide the said application within a stipulated period. In the meanwhile, this Court quashed the First Information Report and criminal proceedings and the Hon’ble Supreme Court also dismissed the Special Leave Petition. These facts were brought to the notice of respondent nos. 1 and 2 by filing additional submissions. Respondent no.1 called the petitioner and respondent nos. 3 and 4 for hearing and vide order dt. 12.9.2006 rejected the application of petitioner for grant of sanction. In view of the order of rejection passed by respondent no.1, respondent no.2 also rejected the application vide order dt. 6.9.2006. Being aggrieved by both these orders, the petitioner filed present petition.

6. Mr. Anand Jaiswal, learned counsel has submitted that respondent no.1 did not take into consideration the contentions raised by petitioner either in the Original application dt. 8.8.2000 or in the additional submissions filed thereafter. It is contended that the orders impugned do not show application of mind to the f