Approval for inquiry against public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act must be supported by clear reasoning, reflecting application of mind, to ensure adherence to principles of natural justice.

ORDER

In this petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order at Annexure-A, dated 09.08.2023, whereby respondent No.1 granted approval in favour of respondent No.2-Lokayuktha to conduct an enquiry/inquiry/investigation against the petitioners, Shivaraju.T.S., and Arul Kumar, the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapur Sub Division.

2. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for respondent No.1 and learned Counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner was appointed as a Tahsildar in the year 2017 and was serving at various places. On 05.07.2021, the petitioner was promoted to the cadre of Tahsildar Grade-I and thereafter, he was transferred to the post of the Tahsildar, Doddaballapura Taluk, in which the aforesaid Mr. Arul Kumar was working as the Assistant Commissioner. There were Revenue proceedings between two private parties in relation to which, the petitioner, who was working as a Tahsildar made certain changes in the Revenue Records, which was challenged before the aforesaid Mr. Arul Kumar, who was a Assistant Commissioner in an appeal under the provisions of the Land Revenue Act. At that stage, pursuant to a complaint said to have been given by one Anand against the aforesaid Mr. Arul Kumar-Assistant Commissioner, respondent No.1 proceeded to pass the impugned order granted prior approval under Section 17 (A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short ‘PC Act’) for the purpose of conducting enquiry/inquiry/investigation against the petitioner and the aforesaid Mr. Arul Kumar-Assistant Commissioner.

4. Aggrieved by the impugned order at Annexure-A, dated 09.08.2023, granting approval as against the petitioner herein, he is before this Court by way of the present petitioner.

5. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the impugned order at Annexure-A, dated 09.08.2023, in order to point out that apart from the fact that complaint by the complainant/Anand was only as against the Mr. Arul Kumar- Assistant Commissioner and not against the petitioner herein, the only/sole reason for granting approval under Section 17 (A) of the PC Act was on the basis of a letter/communication dated 16.07.2021, which in turn refers to a complaint said to have been given against both petitioner and the aforesaid Mr. Arul Kumar-Assistant Commissioner. It is submitted that except for citing the said reason, which does not disclose absolutely any application of mind, no other reason is forthcoming in the impugned order so as to warrant grant of approval as against the petitioner herein and consequently, the impugned non-speaking and unreasoned order suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and non-application of mind and the same deserves to be quashed.

6. In support of his submissions learned Senior Counsel places reliance upon the following judgments of this Court in the case ofMAHESH.S.R. Vs. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER AND THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY AND OTHERS in WP.No.250/2021 and MR. ARUL KUMAR Vs. STATE BY REVENUE DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS in WP.No.28622/2023 and H.V.SRIDHAR Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER in WP.No.13773/2021.

7. Per contra, learned AGA would support the impugned order and submits that the present petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.

8. Learned AGA as well as learned Counsel for respondent No.2-Lokayuktha would submit that the petition filed against granting of sanction/approval under Section 17 (A)