A prosecution sanction refusal granted by the competent authority under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (a special central legislation) cannot be overturned or revised by a state authority exercising powers under state legislation or administrative rules.

ORDER :

Vivek Kumar Singh, J.

Regard being had to the similitude of the facts and question of law involved in both the writ petitions, they are being heard and decided analogously by this common order. However, for the sake of convenience, facts of W.P. No. 16338 of 2023 are being taken for reference.

2. The W.P. No.16338 of 2023 has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 30.05.2023 passed by respondent No.1 to set aside the order of refusal of sanction by President-in-council, Municipal Council, Ashta and the order dated 17.07.2023 for granting sanction under Section 323(2) of Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (for brevity ‘Act of 1961’) to prosecute the petitioner in connection with Crime No.229/2015 for the offence registered under Sections 7, 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short ‘PC Act, 1988’) on the ground that the impugned order was passed by respondent No.1 without jurisdiction, contrary to the provisions contained under Section 323 of the Act of 1961 and also against the direction issued vide circular dated 05.09.2014 (Annexure P/4) passed by General Administration Department, Govt. of M.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘GAD’).

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts germane to the institution of the present petition, are as under :-

(i) The petitioner is working as Assistant Grade-II in the Municipal Council, Ashta and an F.I.R. was registered on 26.10.2018 against him for the offences under Section 7, 13(1) (b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 registered at Crime No. 229/2018.

(ii) The Investigating Agency sought prosecution sanction from the competent authority i.e. President-in-council (for short ‘PIC’), Municipal Council, Ashta and the same has been refused vide order dated 12.10.2022 (Annexure P/1), exercising the power under Section 19(3) of the PC Act, 1988. The said order of refusal was suo moto set aside by Urban Administration and Development Department, State of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal vide impugned order dated 30.05.2023 (Annexure P/3) and during the pendency of the present petition, the Commissioner, Urban Administration and Development Department, Bhopal granted prosecution sanction vide impugned order dated 17.07.2023 (Annexure P/5) by exercising the power of amended Rule 51 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Employees (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1968 which was amended only on 15.12.2022.

(iii) This Court vide order dated 23.09.2025 requested the Principal Secretary of the Department to file an affidavit giving the details as to “whether the decision of Mayor-in-council can be over-turned if it suffers from bias of non-application of mind and also with regard to that once one of the authority exercising concurrent power i.e. the Mayor-in-council has already exercised its authority in rejecting the sanction then whether the Commissioner, Urban Administration and Development Department was competent to grant sanction de horse the rejection made by Mayor-in-Council?”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner succinctly submits that once the order was passed by the PIC, Municipal Council, Ashta refusing the sanction for prosecution for the aforesaid offences then the State authorities or its functionaries do not have any power to set aside the same under Section 323 of the Act of 1961. It is further submitted t