Point of law: A sanction which names the person to be prosecuted and specifies the provision of the Order which he is alleged to have contravented is not a sufficient compliance of Cl. 23. In order to comply the provisions of Cl. 23, it must be proved that the sanction was given in respect of the facts constituting the offence charged. It plainly desirable that the fact should be referred to on the face of the sanction, but this is not essential since Cl. 23 does not re-charged are not shown on the face of the sanction, the prosecution must prove by extraneous evidence that those facts were placed before the sanctioning authority

JUDGMENT :

Ramesh Sinha, J. for the Bench

1. By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the correctness and validity of the sanction order dated 31.08.2019 passed by the respondent no.3-Managing Director, U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd., Lucknow contained in Annexure no.1 to the writ petition, whereby prosecution sanction for prosecuting the petitioner under Sections 409/120B I.P.C. and under Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has been granted. He has also challenged the report prepared by the Lokayukta, U.P. contained in Annexure No.2 to the writ petition. He has also sought a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents not to further proceed with the matter on the basis of the impugned inquiry report of the Lokayukta, Uttar Pradesh and order dated 31.08.2019.

2. The brief facts of the case are that in the year 2007, the State Government took a decision for construction of memorials and parks in Lucknow and NOIDA. In pursuance thereof, a three Members Committee consisting of Managing Director of U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd., Lucknow, the Director, Department of Geology and Mining and its Joint Director, was constituted for the purposes of ascertaining the sufficiency of pink stones in the Ahraura region of District Mirzapur. The Committee, after due inquiry, found that pink sandstone is available in sufficient quantity. Thereafter, another Committee of seven officials including three officers of earlier Committee submitted its report indicating therein that it is not feasible to obtain approximately 2.00 Lakh cubic feet of sandstone from single area and such supply should be obtained from a number of lease areas and it was further recommended that a consortium of lease holders should be constituted for the purposes of entering into an agreement regarding supply of sandstones.

3. The work in question was done upto 2011 and, thereafter, on some complaint, the matter was referred to Lokayukta by the State Government for inquiry into the matter. As per provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta & Up-Lokayuktas Act, 1975 (hereafter referred to as “Act, 1975” for the sake of brevity), the inquiry was conducted without giving any proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the Lokayukta submitted an inquiry report to the State Government vide its letter no. 2115-2012/87/2064 dated 20.05.2013. On the basis of the aforesaid inquiry report of Lokayukta, the State Government took a decision for lodging an

F.I.R. and also ordered for investigation of the same by the Vigilance Establishment.

4. Rejoinder affidavit filed today on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record.

5. The pleadings between the parties have been exchanged.

6. Heard Sri Ajai Krishna Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondents no. 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7, Ms. Ashmita Singh, holding brief of Sri Shishir Jain, learned Counsel for the respondent no.3-U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. and Sri Amrendra Pratap Singh, holding brief of Sri A.P. Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent no.5-Lokayukta.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that no role of the petitioner was found in the inquiry/investigation of the Lokayukta but under the orders of the State Government, an F.I.R. was lodged at Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow on 01.01.2014, which was registered as Case Crime No. 1 of 2014, under Sections 406/120B I.P.C. and under Section 13 (1) (D) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against 19 persons i.e. two Ex-Ministers of the State and 17 Government officials.

8. It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that though in pursuance of the order of the State Government, Vigilance Department had started investigation but during the course of investigation, the version of the petitioner was never considered. Thereafter, Investigating Officer requested the appointing authority to gra