ORDER :

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to question the validity of the prosecution sanction dated 18.03.2008 (Annex.10) granted against the petitioner under the provisions of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Act of 1988).

2. The petitioner was working as Manager under Jaitaran Kray Vikray Sahkari Samiti, Pali. An FIR was lodged against him that he demanded a sum of Rs.60,000/- from one Babulal Gehlot. It was further alleged that the illegal gratification sought to be paid to the petitioner was directed to be kept at the place of one Chaularam. The amount of alleged illegal gratification of Rs.60,000/- was recovered from an open bag of motorcycle.

3. The authority sought grant of prosecution sanction alongwith draft prosecution sanction filed as Annex.6.

4. The competent authority i.e. the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Rajasthan, Jaipur by communication dated 18/19.06.2007 (Annex.5) sought clarification from the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Pali indicting that from the facts disclosed, prima facie, it is not proved that the petitioner was guilty of the offences.

5. Whereafter, on 24.07.2007 (Annex.7) the prosecution sanction verbatim, as per the draft prosecution sanction sent by the ACB to the competent authority, was issued.

6. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 214/2008, which petition came to be decided by order dated 28.02.2008 (Annex.8), wherein a Coordinate Bench of this Court, apparently based on the fact that there was no difference between the draft prosecution sanction and the prosecution sanction granted, observed that it was difficult to accept that there exist independent application of mind of the competent authority and required the petitioner to submit a representation to the authority who had passed the order dated 24.07.2007 (Annex.7) and the authority was directed to pass a fresh order.

7. The petitioner made a representation dated 04.03.2008 (Annex.9), inter-alia, referring to the facts and raising several issues and annexed judgments on the aspect.

8. The competent authority again issued the prosecution sanction dated 18.03.2008 (Annex.10), which is sought to be questioned in the present proceedings.

9. Petitioner, present in person, made vehement submissions that the prosecution sanction granted against the petitioner on 18.03.2008 (Annex.10) suffers from non-application of mind by the competent authority, inasmuch as it has again inter-alia reiterated the contents of the draft prosecution sanction (Annex.6) while granting prosecution sanction, which aspect had already been quashed and set aside by this Court in earlier round of litigation and as the order impugned suffers from the same vice, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.

10. Vehement submissions were made that the prosecution sanction was sought with the allegations that the petitioner was caught red handed, whereas the factual matrix is totally contrary to the said allegation, wherein the alleged amount of illegal gratification was recovered from an open bag of a motorcycle, 3 KM away from the Office of the petitioner. The authority empowered to grant prosecution sanction vide Annex.5 had specifically indicated that the illegal gratification was neither received, nor accepted by the petitioner and even the owner of the motorcycle viz. Chaularam, had also not touched the said amount of gratification and therefore, the same required clarification, which aspect was totally ignored. Further, under the directions of the Court, in the earlier round of litigation, the petitioner made a detailed representation raising several issues pertaining to grant of sanction and that in the circumstances the same should not be granted, however, the authority didn’t take into consideration any of the said aspects and the judgment cited and therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. Reliance was placed on Mansukhlal Vithal Chau