The sanctioning authority should exercise its authority independently, and subsequent sanction on the same material is impermissible.

JUDGMENT :

Saroj Yadav, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying the following reliefs :

"(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order of sanction of prosecution dated 18.06.2007, passed against the petitioner, by the opposite party no. 2, contained as Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition.

(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the Govt. Order dated 15.05.2007 by which the opposite party no. 1 has directed the opposite party no. 2/competent authority to grant sanction for prosecution against individuals in Investigation Case No.12/2000 and which finally resulted in passing of impugned order."

2. Heard Shri A.K. Bajpai, assisted by Ms. Tejaswani Bajpai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ajai Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in Investigation Case No.12 of 2000 sanction for prosecution was previously refused by the Opposite Party No. 2 vide order dated 27.03.2006. Thereafter, the Opposite Party No. 2-Successor-in-Office had no authority in law to supersede or review the order passed by the Predecessor-in-Office. He further submitted that impugned order dated 18.06.2007 is contrary to law as on its face, which indicates that same has been passed on the direction of the Opposite Party No. 1. The subsequent authority i.e. Successor-in-Office did not even had the courage to distinguish his view from the Predecessor-in-Office. The Successor-in-Office has grossly misused his position and discretion by granting sanction of prosecution contrary to the Order dated 27.03.2006 issued by the Predecessor-in-Office. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following case laws:-

(i) State of H.P. Versus Nishant Sareen, (2010) 14 SCC 527;

(ii) Gopikant Choudhary Versus State of Bihar and others, (2009) 9 SCC 53;

(iii) Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan Versus State of Gujarat, (1997) 7 SCC 622;

(iv) R.S. Nayak Versus A.R. Antulay, (1984) 2 SCC 183.

4. To the contrary, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner but could not dispute the facts and arguments placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party, wherein it has been stated that the petitioner, the then Manager (Gramodyog), Office of U.P. Khadi & Village Industries Board, Kanpur misused his Office and was in collusion with Mr. Firoz Alam, the Secretary of M/s Sani Gramodyog Sansthan, Jajmau, Kanpur. The petitioner fully knowing that Mr. Firoz Alam, the Secretary of the above said Sansthan has filed forged and fabricated papers of Guarantor Raja Hasan and Babu relating to land and he has even not constructed the workshop. The Economic Offences Wing (E.O.W) found the petitioner guilty for illegalities and the State Government vide Order No. 553/59-1-2007 dated 15.05.2007 sent the directions relating to permission for granting prosecution sanction with reference to Criminal Investigation No. 12/2000 and in pursuance of the State Government's order prosecution sanction has been given vide Order No. 2105-10 dated 18.06.2007.Therefore, the present writ petition may be dismissed.

5. Considered the arguments of rival sides and perused the record and the case law cited.

6. It is not denied in the counter affidavit that previously Predecessor-in-Office had refused the prosecution sanction vide order dated 27.03.2006 and subsequently Successor-in-Office had granted prosecution sanction vide impugned order dated 18.06.2007. In the counter affidavit, it has been categorically stated that in pursuance of the State Government's order prosecution sanction has been given vide Order No. 2105-10 dated 18.06.2007.

7. It is settled principle of law that sanctioning authority should exercise its authority and discretion independently under the authority of his own Office and not under the directions g