(1) What is meant by the term “as the case may be” incorporated in Section 45(1) (ii) of the Unlawful Activities(Prevention) Act, 1967?

(2) In a case investigated by the CBI, in which offences under Chapters IV and VI of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 are also included, is it the Central Government or the State Government, to grant sanction for cognizance of the offences?

(3) When competency of the authority to grant sanction is raised, is it a challenge regarding the validity of the sanction order or is it a case of absence of sanction?

(4) Can validity of sanction be challenged at the very inception of the case?

These are the main questions that arise for consideration in these writ petitions.

2. W.P.(C) No.25403/2017 (hereinafter referred to as the 'first writ petition') is filed by A1 to A19 in S.C.No.343/2017 of the Court of Special Judge (SPE/CBI)-III, Ernakulam. W.P.(C) No.31229/2017(hereinafter referred to as the 'second writ petition') is filed by A20 to A25 in the aforesaid sessions case.

3. Originally, Crime No.780/14 of the Kathirur Police Station was registered consequent to the incident involved. After the investigation for quite some time, the S