The court established that a writ petition challenging a prosecution sanction is non-maintainable post-cognizance, affirming that the sanctioning authority must apply its mind to relevant materials, which was confirmed in this case.

ORDER :

K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

The Writ Petitioner has filed this writ Petition challenging the sanction order accorded by the second respondent in G.O.Ms.No.104 (Agriculture (AA2) Department, dated 03.03.2016, to the Vigilance Department to prosecute him for the offences under Sections 167 , 409, 420, 468, 472 and 477-A of IPC r/w 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2.The Petitioner was working as a Seed Certification Officer, Kovilpatti. During his tenure, he and other accused were said to have committed certain malpractice, which resulted in misappropriation of the subsidy amount allotted for the National Food Security Mission and National Agriculture Development Programme scheme, and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Thoothukudi, registered a case in Crime No.4 of 2013 for the offence under Sections 409 r/w 109 of IPC and 13(1)(c) and (d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and investigated the matter and after obtaining sanction from the second respondent in G.O.Ms.No.104 (Agriculture (AA2) Department, dated 03.03.2016, filed the final report. The same was taken on file in Spl.C.C.No.5 of 2016 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Thoothukudi, and the matter is pending trial. Challenging the same, the present petition has been filed.

3.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submitted that there was no application of mind in the said order and absolutely no material is available against him to accord the sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Without any material and without summoning any material available on record from the Parent Department, the second respondent committed error in according the sanction to prosecute him only on the basis of the report of the investigating officers. He further submitted that if there was non- application of mind, the same amounts to miscarriage of justice and hence, he seeks for setting aside the same.

4.This Court considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

5.Admittedly, the petitioner is arraigned as A3 and final report was filed. After filing the final report, cognizance was taken in Spl.C.C.No.5 of 2016 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge Court, Thoothukudi. After taking cognizance in Spl.C.C.No.5 of 2016, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is legally not maintainable. It is settled principle that the petitioner/accused has no right to file a writ petition challenging the impugned sanction order. The same was repeatedly held by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Devinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2016 12 SCC 87 and also this Court in the case of Dr.J.Jayalalitha Vs. Dr.M.Channa Reddy and others reported in 1995 1 LW 525 . In view of the above, writ petition itself is not maintainable.

6. The learned senior counsel would submit that the sanctioning authority accorded sanction without application of mind. Whether, the sanctioning authority accorded sanction with application of mind or not is a question of fact. Therefore, this Court in all good sense expressed its difficulty to discuss the said factual aspect in this writ petition on the ground that the same would affect the petitioner's case before the trial Court during the course of the trial. But the writ petitioner insisted this Court to render a finding on the said fact of non application of mind. Therefore this Court without any other option delves into the question whether