THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS NO. 1 IN SO FAR AS THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21/02/2026 (ANNEXURE - F) ISSUE WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21/02/2026 BEARING NO. KAVIPRANINI / B52/45939 /2023-24 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 (ANNEXURE - F), IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. C) PASS ANY OTHER ORDER WHICH THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT, INCLUDING THE COST OF THE WRIT PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL ORDER

The captioned writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India calling in question the legality and correctness of the order dated 21.02.2026 at Annexure–F, whereby sanction has been accorded under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the Act") to investigate the role of the petitioner.

The facts leading to the case are as under:

The petitioner entered into service as an Assistant Engineer on 16.12.1998 and, during the relevant period, worked as Executive Engineer, O & M Urban Division, HESCOM, between 18.02.2020 and 10.07.2023. He was subsequently promoted as Superintending Engineer in the year 2024.

A complaint came to be lodged by one Superintending Engineer alleging large-scale financial irregularities and dereliction of duty attributed to one Basavaraj C. Mallimath, a retired official. Based on the said complaint, FIR in Crime No.25/2024 came to be registered for offences punishable under Sections 408, 417, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 477A of IPC. The investigation was thereafter entrusted to CID, which is registered in Cr.No.11/2024.

During the course of investigation, the said Basavaraj Mallimath is stated to have made a statement implicating the present petitioner. Based on the said material, a requisition dated 16.09.2025 was sent seeking sanction to investigate the petitioner under Section 17A of the Act. After the demise of the said accused on 10.12.2025, a further communication dated 01.01.2026 was addressed seeking sanction. Ultimately, by the impugned order dated 21.02.2026, sanction has been accorded to investigate the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the impugned order reflects that “further investigation” is sought, thereby indicating that investigation had already commenced without sanction under Section 17A of the Act. He further submits that the petitioner is sought to be implicated solely on the basis of a confessional statement of a co-accused/store-keeper, which has no evidentiary value and there is no independent material attracting the ingredients of Section 13(1)(a) of the Act. Counsel further vehemently contended that sanction under Section 17A of the Act cannot be used as a post-facto device to legitimize an already illegal investigation.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that sanction under Section 17A of the Act to investigate stands on a completely different footing from sanction under Section 19 of the Act, to prosecute. He further submits that at the stage of grant of sanction, the competent authority is only required to form a prima facie satisfaction; that the allegations pertain to a scam involving misappropriation of more than Rs.30 Crores, which necessitates a thorough investigation. While concluding his submissions contends that interference at a nascent stage would stultify the statutory scheme and frustrate a legitimate investigation.

In light of the rival contentions, the following points arise for consideration:

(i) Whether the impugned order granting sanction under Section 17A of the Act suffers from any jurisdictional error warranting interference?

(ii) Whether this Court, i