Validity of sanction depends on the sanctioning authority's thorough application of mind to prosecution materials, ensuring independent decision-making without external influence.

JUDGMENT :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

1. This Writ Petition (Criminal) has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner, who is a student of Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Kalady (hereinafter referred to as ‘the University’). The prayers sought in this petition are as follows:

1. issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, calling for the records leading upto to the issuance of Ext.P2 and set-aside the same alongwith Ext.P2 denial of sanction;

2. issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, and set-aside Ext.P3 notice issued by the court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Muvattupuzha;

3. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the sanctioning authority of the 4th respondent university to consider Ext.P1 afresh and pass orders upon it after due enquiry as per law within a time frame fixed by this Hon’ble court;

4. issue such other writ, order or directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to be granted in the circumstances of the case including costs.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, the learned Special Public Prosecutor representing the VACB, as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent University.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner read out the contents of Ext.P2 order dated 10.01.2018, whereby sanction was refused, and contended that the sanctioning authority failed to apply its mind to the case of the prosecution after adverting the prosecution records. Consequently there is no reference in the sanction refusal order as to the case of the prosecution or the records thereof. Instead, the refusal of sanction was in consideration of the services rendered by Dr.Venugopalan Nair C (the 8th accused) as the Head of the Department of Dance at the University. That apart on assessing his contributions to the University sanction was declined. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner prayed for interference in the impugned order and sought a direction to the University to decide the question of grant of sanction in accordance with the law.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent placed decision of the Apex Court reported in Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, (1997) 7 SCC 622 with reference to paragraphs 18 and 19 to substantiate the point that the observations in Paragraphs 18 and 19 the Apex Court would govern the grant or refusal of sanction. Paragraphs 18 and 19 are extracted as under:-

“18. The validity of the sanction would, therefore, depend upon the material placed before the sanctioning authority and the fact that all the relevant facts, material and evidence have been considered by the sanctioning authority. Consideration implies application of mind. The order of sanction must ex facie disclose that the sanctioning authority had considered the evidence and other material placed before it. This fact can also be established by extrinsic evidence by placing the relevant files before the Court to show that all relevant facts were considered by the sanctioning authority.

19. Since the validity of "sanction" depends on the applicability of mind by the sanctioning authority to the facts of the case as also the material and evidence collected during investigation, it necessarily follows that the sanctioning authority has to apply its own independent mind for the generation of genuine satisfaction whether prosecution has to be sanctioned or not. The mind of the sanctioning authority should not be under pressure from any quarter nor should any external force be acting upon it to take a decision one way or the other. Since the discretion to grant or not to grant sanction vests absolutely in the sanctioning authority, its discretion should be shown to have not been affected by any extraneous consideration. If it is shown that the sanctioning authority was unable to apply its independent mind for any reason whatsoever or was un