Hon’ble Naheed Ara Moonis, J.—Heard Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Imran Ullah, learned Additional Advocate General, learned counsel for CBI Sri N.I. Jafri, respondent No. 3 as well as Sri Navin Sinha, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Shwetashwa Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4.

2. The instant petition has been filed with a prayer to issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 21.11.2014 passed by Principal Secretary (Home), U.P. Government at Lucknow, respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the Sanctioning Authority) whereby the sanction to prosecute the respondent No. 4 Sri J. Ravindra Gaur, Senior Superintendent of Police, Aligarh has been refused in Case Crime No. 571 of 2008 (Now Case Crime No. R.C.-053201050006), under Sections 302, 201,120-B IPC, police station CBI/SCB, Lucknow.

3. Further prayed to issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to accord sanction for the prosecution of the respondent No. 4 in the above noted case.

4. It is necessary to bring on record that initially the writ petition was filed by Brijendra Kumar Gupta, who is the father of the victim in the aforesaid case. Brijendra Kumar Gupta died during the pendency of the writ petition and his son Shikhar Kumar Gupta has been substituted vide order dated 17.8.2015 as his legal heir and representative.

5. Two questions are involved in the instant writ petition. Firstly, as to whether the respondent No. 2 has rightly refused to accord sanction for prosecution of respondent No. 4 in the aforesaid Case Crime No. 571 of 2008; and secondly as to whether the aforesaid order is amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the order impugned has been passed by the Administrative Authority.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 4 has raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition hence we think appropriate to answer first the latter question.

7. It has been argued by the learned Senior counsel for the respondent No. 4 that the impugned order passed by the respondent No. 2 is in the exercise of administrative function and the Hon’ble High Court cannot sit as an appellate authority over the decision of an order of Administrative Authority. The respondent No. 3 has acted reasonably in refusing to accord sanction to prosecute the respondent No. 4 after taking into account the material facts and evidence. It has further been argued that all the accused police official had acted in self defence in which one person, namely, Pankaj Mishra @ Karan was injured and Mukul Gupta, the son of the petitioner, was killed on 30.6.2007 in a police encounter. There is ample evidence on record that the police official had acted in discharge of their official duty and any excessive act would not be a ground to prosecute the public servant. It was a case of cross firing from both sides. The impugned order has been passed by the respondent No. 2 in the light of the order passed by this Hon’ble Court dated 27.5.2014 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 6538 of 2014.

8. To lend cogency to his submission on the maintainability of the writ petition, the learned counsel has placed reliance upon the decisions of Hon’ble the Apex Court in U.P. Financial Corporation v. Gem Cap (India) Pvt. Ltd. and others, AIR 1993 SC 1435, Om Kumar and others v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 3689 and Indian Railways Construction Company Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar, AIR 2003 SC 1843. It is contended that in respect of the administrative action taken by the authority it would not be appropriate to the writ Court to sit as an appellate Court, even if the authority has acted unfairly and unreasonably. It does not mean that High Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can sit as an appellate authority over