MUKTA GUPTA
G. S. Matharaoo – Appellant
Versus
CBI – Respondent
1. The grievance of the Petitioner in the present petition is to the incompetency of the authority granting sanction for prosecution against him for offences under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (POC Act) in RC EOU-1 2005 A 0005 and thus the initiation of proceedings against the Petitioner is illegal and void ab initio be set aside.
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that in terms of the Regulations as empowered to be framed under Section 480 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (in short “DMC Act”), the authority competent to remove the Petitioner is the Corporation, however, in the case of the Petitioner the sanction has been granted by the Commissioner, MCD, who is not the authority competent to remove him. He further contends that as per Section 2(7) of the DMC Act, “Corporation” means the Municipal Corporation of Delhi established under the Act. Section 44 provides for the municipal authorities for the efficient performance of the Corporation and the Commissioner, MCD is one of the authorities. Section 59 of the DMC Act provides for the functions of the Commissioner and the main function of the Commiss
State of Goa v Babu Thomas 2005 (8) SCC 130
Chittranjan Das v State of Orissa 2011 (7) Scale 461
Bharathidasan University & anr. v All India Council for Technical Education & ors. 2001 (8) SCC 676
Additional District Magistrate (Rev) Delhi Admn. V Siri Ram 2000(5) SCC 451
Lalu Prasad Yadav v State of Bihar thru’ CBI (AHD) Patna 2007 (1) SCC 49
R.S. Nayak v A.R. Antulay AIR 1984 SC 684
Mohd. Iqbal Ahmad v State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1979 SC 677
Prakash Singh Badal v State of Punjab (2007) 1 SCC 1
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.