ORDER :

1. The petitioner herein calls in question legality, validity and correctness of the impugned order dated 15-5-2019 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No.1 in exercise of power conferred under Section 19(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the PC Act’) read with Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the CrPC’) granting sanction for prosecution against him for offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act and Sections 120B & 420 of the IPC.

2. Essential facts in order to adjudicate the aforesaid challenge levied by the petitioner are as under :-

3. The Chhattisgarh State Economic Crime Bureau and Anti Corruption Bureau registered an offence under Crime No.42/1996 against the petitioner and other persons for offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act and Sections 120B & 420 of the IPC and sought sanction from respondent No.1 for prosecution against the petitioner herein and other persons under Section 19(1)(b) of the PC Act and Section 197 of the CrPC in which respondent No.1 Department of Law & Legislative Affairs by memo dated 22-3-2019 sought comments from the Administrative Department i.e. the Secretary, Department of Water Resources, State of Chhattisgarh – respondent No.2 herein and reiterated by memo dated 25-4-2019, but, comments were not received from the said respondent Department upon which sanction for prosecution was granted on 15-5-2019 by the State Respondent – respondent No.1 herein. It is the case of the petitioner in the writ petition that as per the circular dated 21-4-1997 issued by the Department of General Administration of the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh, the Department of Law & Legislative Affairs shall obtain opinion of the Department concerned before granting sanction and in case of conflict between the two Departments, the matter shall be referred to the Sub-Committee of the Cabinet. It is the further case of the petitioner that in this case, the Administrative Department of the petitioner i.e. the Water Resources Department, by memo dated 16-5-2019 (Annexure P-1) has already conveyed its disagreement for grant of sanction for prosecution against the petitioner, however, sanction for prosecution has been granted by respondent No.1 – Principal Secretary, Department of Law & Legislative Affairs, whereas, the matter ought to have been placed for consideration before the Sub-Committee of the Cabinet as provided in the circular dated 21-4-1997 (page 44 of the writ petition) and in absence of that, sanction granted is vitiated and as such, the order granting sanction against the petitioner is unsustainable and bad in law and deserves to be quashed.

4. Return has been filed by the State/respondents stating inter alia that on 3-2-1988, a notification was issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms and Training, while carrying out amendment in the Madhya Pradesh Works (Allotment) Rules, and the subject of according sanction for prosecution to the Department of Law & Legislative Affairs was authorised under Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (now repealed by the Act of 1988) and Section 197 of the CrPC. It has further been pleaded that by circular dated 31-5-1996, jurisdiction to grant sanction for prosecution against the Government Servant will be directly by the Department of Law & Legislative Affairs of State and by circular dated 21-4-1997 (Annexure R-1), it has been decided that before the order granting sanction for prosecution, opinion from the Administrative Department will have to be obtained and for the same, time period of one month has been fixed and if opinion is not extended by the Administrative Department within the said period, it will be open to the Law & Legislative Affairs Department to consider and grant sanction/approval for prosecution without further waiting for opinion of the Administrative Department. Annexure R-2 – order dated 30-5-2003 p