Koshy, Ag.C.J.

These two writ petitions are filed as public interest litigation regarding granting of sanction for prosecuting the accused in the SNC Lavlin Scam which is the biggest scandal that rocked this small but literate State of Kerala. It is the contention of the petitioners that in view of the agreement executed between the Kerala State Electricity Board and SNC Lavlin, a Canadian Intermediary regarding renovation and modernisation of Pallivasal, Chengulam and Panniyar Hydro Electric projects, State has lost more than Rs.500 crores and certain persons obtained material gains of Rs.300 crores. Comptroller and Auditor General found out the great loss caused to the State. Sri.Balanandan Commission report also shows the irregularities in the above deal. State Vigilance also after investigation found grievous irregularities, corruption and loss to the State. But Vigilance enquiry pointed out more guilt on the officers rather than persons behind it. Petitioners approached this court earlier also which resulted in Ext.P1 judgment by which a Division Bench of this Court (One of us, Justice J.B.Koshy, was a member) directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate the matter, considering the earlier decision of the State Government to refer the matter to CBI. The above judgment has become final. The CBI, as per the directions of this Court, completed the investigation within the extended time frame allowed in subsequent orders. Thereafter, final report was produced before this Court in a sealed cover to show that investigation was completed. Since investigation was completed, we returned the sealed cover without opening, to the counsel for C.B.I.. It is submitted by the Standing Counsel for the CBI that application for sanction to prosecute Accused Nos.1, 9 and 10 who are two Government Officers and an Ex-Minister, was filed under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) for the offences punishable under section 120-B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It is the case of the petitioners that sanction is not necessary to prosecute the accused as the offences alleged under sections 120-B and 420 of the IPC are committed not in the discharge of the official duties. It is further submitted that immediately on filing the final report, when the request reached the Government, the Home Minister made a statement that CBI investigation report is politically motivated. Hence in view of the political clout sanction may not be granted by this Government. According to the petitioner, Ex-Minister who is now arrayed as an accused in the report, is the Secretary of the political party which is a major partner of the front ruling the State and in view of his political influence Council of Ministers will not give sanction to prosecute them for obvious reasons. Therefore, it is prayed that if sanction is necessary, this court should issue a writ of mandamus for giving sanction within a reasonable time as this court should prevent politicians or bureaucrats looting the poor citizens of the country and being the guardian of the Constitution, this court shall rise to the occasion. When the case came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for CBI submitted that whether sanction is necessary under section 197 Cr. P.C. for prosecuting the above three accused is a question in dispute as there are divergent views expressed in various judgments and, by way of abundant caution, they filed the application for sanction and it is for the court to decide whether sanction is necessary or not and if this court is of the opinion that no sanction is necessary, CBI is ready to file the charge sheet. As held by the Apex Court that for granting sanction, the granting authority need not give an opportunity for hearing to the accused as it is not contemplated under section 197. (See: State of Maharashtra v. Iswar Piraji Kalpatri and others ((1996) 1 SCC 542) and State of Bihar and another v. P.P.Sharma and another (