RANJIT MORE, J.

1. The Petitioner by filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is challenging the order dated 4th February 2016 passed by the Hon’ble Governor of Maharashtra, thereby granting sanction under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [for short “the Code”] for launching prosecution against the Petitioner for the offence punishable under sections 120-B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The grant of sanction is challenged mainly on the ground that in fact it is a review of the earlier order passed by the erstwhile Hon’ble Governor, dated 17th December 2013. The CBI had proposed sanction to prosecute the Petitioner as contemplated under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. It is submitted that by an order dated 17th December 2013, the erstwhile Hon’ble Governor had refused to accord sanction after considering the material and by proper application of mind. It is submitted that there was no scope to review the earlier order since the CBI was not only not aggrieved by the order but pursuant to the said order had proceeded to file application under section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

3. Mr. Desai, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that a review of an earlier order refusing to grant sanction could be undertaken with extreme caution and only if clinching new/fresh primary material, which is capable of converting into evidence, had been discovered by the investigating agency in the course of its investigation, subsequent to the sanction refusal order, indicating commission of the offence. He submitted that material already considered cannot be reconsidered and the review should be undertaken only in the rarest of rare cases. He submitted that while deciding whether or not to grant sanction, the sanctioning authority has to independently apply its own mind to the relevant facts and material constituting the specific offences charged that were before the investigating agency. Therefore, material such as another person’s or authority’s opinion ex-facie barred by law cannot be used to form a prima facie opinion and is not fresh material and is irrelevant. He then submitted that administrative orders that are arbitrary, illegal, irrational and/or passed without jurisdiction or based on improper procedure or for extraneous considerations/political bias must be struck down by the superior Courts. Mr. Desai further submitted that a question regarding the validity of an order of sanction with no disputed facts must be decided at the earliest stage possible, to ensure that public servants are not harassed by vexatious and/or frivolous prosecution. Mr. Desai lastly submitted that in above circumstances, writ petition deserves to be allowed by setting aside the impugned order.

4. Mr. Singh, the learned ASG appearing on behalf of the Respondent-State as well as the Respondent-CBI contested the petition very vehemently. He submitted that by this petition, the Petitioner is challenging the order of the Hon’ble Governor to grant sanction for the prosecution against the Petitioner. This issue can be raised in the trial and at this stage, petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. Mr. Singh submitted that grant or refusal to grant sanction is an administrative process. The refusal of sanction to prosecute puts an end to the prosecution against the public servant, and therefore in the absence of provision for appeal provided under the statute, writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the only remedy available to challenge the same. However, he submitted that grant of sanction to prosecute the public servant stands on altogether different footing than a refusal to grant sanction. He submitted that such sanction can be challenged on the ground that (i) the same is granted without jurisdiction or by the incompetent a