1. Heard Shri Arun Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents.

2. Sole petitioner Anil Garg is challenging order dated 24.01.2014 passed by Principal Secretary (Pramukh Sachiv) Department of Housing and Urban Development, U.P., Lucknow, communicating sanction under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 1988 Act) for prosecution of petitioner under section 7 and 13 (1) (c) and 13(1) (d) read with section 13 (2) of Act, 1988.

3. A complaint was made by Mr. Anil Singh, a Contractor, engaged with Varanasi Development Authority, Varanasi, (hereinafter referred to as ‘VDA’) against petitioner for demanding bribe of Rs. 10,000/- for clearance of his bill of Rs. 87,000/-. Permission was taken from Secretary, Vigilance Department, Government of U.P., and trap was conducted on 01.08.2000. Petitioner was caught red handed in the said trap, accepting gratification of Rs. 10,000/- from complainant Anil Kumar Singh. Pursuant thereto, FIR, being Case Crime no. 355 of 2000 under section 7/13 of Act 1988 was registered. Investigation was conducted by Police and sanction for prosecution of petitioner was granted vide order dated 24.01.2014.

4. Charge-sheet dated 25.05.2014 was submitted before Special Judge, (Prevention of Corruption Act, Varanasi) and trial is pending. In the meantime petitioner is said to have retired on 03.08.2013.

5. Petitioner has placed on record photo-state copy of extract notes and comments dated 20.11.2002 of Mr. A.B. Shukla, Principal Secretary, Law and Legal Remembrancer, Government of U.P., wherein it has been mentioned that prior to incident of trap, petitioner had imposed fine of Rs. 25,000/- as a result of an inquiry on the complainant Contractor, therefore possibility cannot be ruled out that being prejudiced with aforesaid penalty, trap had been managed.

6. The above note also mentioned that Satish Kumar and Ganesh Yadav, two witnesses have not supported incident hence there may not be success in the ultimate trial against petitioner. Note dated 20.11.2002 was placed before Secretary, Housing and Urban Planning on 10.02.2003 who also endorsed the view taken by Principal Secretary, Law and Legal Remembrancer that incident might be due to enmity causing in above trap. Note was approved by Sri Lal Ji Tandon, the then Minister, Housing and Urban Development on 11.02.2003. Thereafter Shri J.S. Mishra, Secretary Urban Planning and Development sent letter dated 28.02.2003 to Additional Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Establishment, Varanasi Sector informing that there is a possibility of trap having been caused due to enmity by concerned contractor and there is no hope of success in prosecution, therefore, in consultation with department of law there is no justification for granting sanction for petitioner’s prosecution.

7. Vigilance Department however insisted that decision should have been taken by concerned department with prior approval of State Vigilance Council but Sri Sanjiv Kumar, Special Secretary, Housing and Urban Planning vide letter dated 02.06.2003 informed Sri Kuwar Fateh Bahadur, Secretary, Vigilance Department that trap was not arranged with prior approval of State Vigilance Council, therefore approval of said Council, before taking any decision on the matter of sanction against petitioner by concerned Administrative Department, is not required. It specifically said that concerned Administrative Department of petitioner has taken a decision for non grant of sanction of prosecution and the chapter be taken as closed.

8. The matter did not rest here. It appears that record was placed before Chief Minister on 08.04.2004 whereupon he directed to place the matter before State Vigilance Council (hereinafter referred to as ‘Council’) for consultation. Matter was placed before said Council and it recommended for grant of sanction for prosecution. Again record routed through Law Department who opined vide note dat