The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the sanctioning authority to apply independent mind and consider all relevant material before granting sanction, as emphasized by the legal provisions and principles discussed in the judgment.

JUDGMENT

1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order of sanction to prosecute dated 28.4.2020, on the ground that the order suffers from non application of independent mind. The petitioner has further sought for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 9.2.2021 which is based on a void sanction order. Further prayer is that the petitioner had filed an application dated 11.2.2022 before the court below praying therein for rejecting the sanction order which is inconsistent with the requirement of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short, ’the P.C. Act’). By the impugned order dated 10.05.2022, the Court below deferred the hearing of t he petition till framing of the charges.

2. The background of writ petition is that one Shyam Singh Katewa engaged in the business of Mining on lease hold property made a complaint to the Inspector General of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau on 19.12.2019, alleging therein that coaccused Sanjay Kothari, the Regional Officer and petitioner Jageshwar Sharma, the Environmental Engineer have demanded Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 30,000/- respectively for grant of order of ’consent to operate’ the mines. The allegation was verified by the ACB authority and finding substance in the same, on the same day in the evening, a trap was organized. Co-accused Sanjay Kothari was apprehended while accepting Rs.30,000/- in his official Chamber in Room No. 222, however, the petitioner who was sitting in Room No. 224 got information of what was happening in Room No. 222 and escaped trap on the basis of other materials including pendency of the file of the complainant before the petitioner, the petitioner was also suspected to be involved in the commission of offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act. Accordingly, FIR No. 394/2019 was registered. After collection of oral and documentary evidence, the investigation of the case was completed and by order dated 11.02.2020, addressed to respondent No.2, the Chairman, Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, who was competent to accord sanction, a request was made for grant of sanction. The letter is very specific that request was to go-through the entire report of investigation by ACB and the evidences and thereafter to take independent decision for sanction. The request letter is at Annexure-9. Along with the request letter, detail gist of the case history, evidence of oral witnesses, documents collected during investigation and conclusion of investigation was also transmitted to the sanctioning authority. The ACB had also put a draft of the sanction order along with the request letter. On 04.02.2020, a reminder was sent for decision on pending issue of sanction and along with this letter also, investigation report of ACB along with draft for prosecution was submitted before the sanctioning authority.

3. Mr. S.S. Hora, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sanctioning authority did not apply its independent mind rather was swayed away by the draft submitted by the prosecution wing, therefore, the sanction to prosecute the petitioner is suffering from non-application of independent mind as such is vitiated in law.

4. Mr. Vaibhav Thakuriya, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2, the sanctioning authority submits that respondent No.2, has filed a separate affidavit denying the averments of the petitioner and made specific statement on oath that the sanction to prosecute is not based on the draft placed, rather is based on the material collected by the ACB which disclosed commission of offence by the petitioner and co-accused.

5. Mr. Prashant Sharma, Dy.G.A. appearing for the State contends that this is not the proper stage to examine the validity of sanction order. Learned counsel has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, (2014) 14 SCC 295 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the earlier view i