Sanction of prosecution against chief Minister held valid.

1. These three writ petitions have been filed by the same writ petitioner. Common contentions have been raised in all the three writ petitions. Hence, all the three writ petitions are disposed of by a common order.

2. In W.P.No. 14625 of 1997, the petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the order of sanction issued by the Governor as communicated by the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No. 1516 Public (SC) Department dated 312. 1996 and quash the said order dated 312. 1996.

3. W.P.No.8170 of 1997 has been filed praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the order of sanction issued by the first respondent as communicated by the second respondent in G.O.Ms.No. 1333 Public (SC) Department dated 111. 1996 and quash the said order of the first and second respondents dated 111. 1996.

4. W.P.No.14644 of 1997 has been filed praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the order of sanction issued by the Governor as communicated by the first respondent in G.O.Ms. 614 Public (S.C.) Department dated 6. 1997 and quash the said order of respondents dated 6. 1997.

5. Mr.K.K. Venugopal, Senior Counsel submitted arguments in respect of W.P.Nos. 14625 and 14644 of 1997 and Mr.N. Natarajan, Senior Counsel, assisted by the Public Prosecutor and Mr.S.R. Balasubramaniam, Special Government Pleader appeared for the respondents other than Her Excellency the Governor of Tamil Nadu.

.6. After the conclusion of the hearing in W.P.Nos. 14625 and 14644 of 1997, the counsel for the petitioner Mr.R. Muthukumaraswamy submitted that the arguments will be the same in W.P.No.8170 of 1997 and that the said W.P.No. 8170 of 1997 may also be disposed of along with W.P.Nos. 14625 and 14644 of 1997.

7. The petitioner, who is common in all the three writ petitions, is the General Secretary of All India Anna Dravida Munnatra Kazhagam Party, which had formed the Government in Tamil Nadu, after it was returned to power in the elections held during the year 1991. The petitioner had been the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu from 1991-96.

8. According to the petitioner, while she was holding the office of the Chief Minister, an individual filed a memorandum before the then Governor of Tamil Nadu, seeking sanction to prosecute the petitioner for alleged offences under Sections 169 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 30 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, alleging that a firm in which the petitioner is a partner had purchased a property belonging to Tamil Nadu Small Industries Corporation (TANSI).

9. The petitioner states that the then Governor of Tamil Nadu, without conducting any enquiry and without issuing notice, passed orders on 25. 1995 sanctioning prosecution of the petitioner for alleged offences under sections 169, Indian Penal Code and Section 30 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, that the petitioner challenged the said sanction order by filing W.P.No. 5221 of 1995 on the file of this Court contending that the order of sanction granted by the then Governor of Tamil Nadu is illegal, as he is not the appropriate Authority to prosecute the Chief Minister under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and even assuming that the Governor was the proper Authority, he was not entitled to pass orders granting sanction based on his discretion alone, but he could do so upon the aid and advice of counsel of ministers excluding the Chief Minister and that the petitioner also challenged the said order of sanction dated 25. 1995 on the ground that it was passed without application of mind and the order is vitiated by mala fides, both malice in facts and malice in law.

.10. The petitioner further states that the said Writ Petition No. 5221 of 1995 was taken up for consideration by a Division Bench of this Court and it was dismissed on the ground that the writ petition is not maintainable in view of Article 361 of the Constitution, that as aga