IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that the power to grant or refuse sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be exercised again on the same materials without fresh evidence, ensuring protection against arbitrary reviews.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

VINAY JOSHI, J. - Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and matter is heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has called in question the order passed by respondent no.1 State Government, Water Resources Department, Mumbai dtd. 24/12/2020, granting sanction to prosecute him in terms of Sec. 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act [P.C. Act] for the offence punishable under Ss. 7, 13[1][d] and 13[2] of the P.C. Act. Consequential relief of quashing of charge sheet No.6/2021 is also prayed for.

3. The principal challenge in this petition is as regards the extent of powers vested in the government in reviewing its order granting or refusing sanction to prosecute a public servant in terms of Sec. 19 of the P.C. Act. It is the case of the petitioner that the authority has no power to review its decision, sans fresh material.

4. The original complainant Raju Bhoyar, a contractor has lodged a complaint with the anti corruption bureau against the petitioner, who was working as an Executive Engineer, Hydro Electric and Lift Irrigation Department, Bhandara. It is alleged that in order to clear complainant's pending bills for the work done by him, the petitioner had demanded an amount of Rs.2.00 lakhs. It was followed by verification and laying down a trap. After completing the required formalities of investigation, papers were forwarded for according sanction to the competent Authority in terms of Sec. 19 of the P.C. Act. The Authority has applied its mind and refused to grant sanction vide its order dtd. 7/1/2017. Refusal order pinpoints 8 reasons for refusing the sanction. The said order was intimated to the anti corruption department by the Chief Secretary vide communication dtd. 6/5/2017.

5. The petitioner was arrested on 19/7/2014, and was remanded to police custody for two days. After refusal of sanction, the petitioner was reinstated in service on 17/7/2017. In the background, on 25/1/2019, the anti corruption department has sought review of the order of refusal of sanction by stating various reasons. Examination of said letter indicates that after refusal of sanction, the department has received spectrographic report dtd. 18/1/2016, stating that the voice of petitioner matches. On the said particular ground sanction was accorded vide impugned order dtd. 24/12/2020, which is the subject matter of challenge in this petition.

6. It is to be remembered that the object underlying Sec. 19 of the P.C. Act is to ensure that a public servant does not suffer harassment on false, frivolous, unsustainable allegations. The exercise of powers under Sec. 19, is not an empty formality, since the government or sanctioning authority is supposed to apply its mind to the entire material and evidence placed before it. We have examined the refusal order dtd. 7/1/2017, which bears several reasons which weighed the authority for refusal of sanction.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that it is not permissible for the sanctioning authority to review or reconsider the matter on same material. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of Supreme Court in case of State of Himachal Pradesh .vrs. Nishant Sareen - [2010] 14 SCC 527, particularly our attention has been drawn to paragraph nos. 12 and 13 of the said decision, which reads as under :

"12. It is true that the Government in the matter of grant or refusal to grant sanction exercises statutory power and that would not mean that power once exercised cannot be exercised again or at a subsequent stage in the absence of express power of review in no circumstance whatsoever. The power of review, however, is not unbridled or unrestricted. It seems to us sound principle to follow that once the statutory power under Sec. 19 of the 1988 Act or Sec. 197 of the Code has been exercised by the Government or the competent authority, as the case may be, it is not permissible for the sanctioning authority to review or reconsider the matt