The refusal of the competent authority to grant prosecution sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act is a discretionary administrative act, and judicial review is limited to ensuring the decision was made independently upon consideration of relevant material.

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

1. This writ appeal is preferred against the Order dated 13.12.2021, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.48249/2018 (GM-RES). The Writ Petition was filed by the appellant herein purportedly under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying to quash the Order dated 28.01.2017 issued by the Government declining to accord sanction to prosecute respondent No.3.

2. Respondent No.3 was a Government Servant working as a Police Inspector, State Intelligence in the Home Department. Crime No. 8/2012 was registered on 28.11.2012 against respondent No.3, alleging commission of offences cognizable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for possessing assets disproportionate to his known source of income. A final report was filed by the appellant alleging that respondent No.3 had amassed wealth disproportionate to his known source of income to the tune of 100.019%. On 16.12.2015, a request was sent to the Government to accord sanction to prosecute respondent No.3. The request was returned on 17.10.2016 by the Government directing the appellant to submit all documents in support of the request. Once again on 29.12.2016, a letter was addressed to respondent No.1 enclosing all documents. The State passed an Order dated 28.01.2017 refusing to accord sanction for prosecution. This was under challenge before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge held that the appellant did not have the locus standi to maintain the writ petition and further held that there was no error in declining to grant sanction. Aggrieved by the order dated 13.12.2021, the appellant is in appeal.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the learned Single Judge failed to take note of the fact that the appellant, being the Investigating Agency, had investigated the matter and concluded that respondent No.3 had amassed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income to the extent of 100%. It is further contended that, as the competent authority rejected the appellant’s request for according sanction, the appellant is an aggrieved person and therefore has the standing to maintain the writ petition.

4. It is further contended that the learned Single Judge failed to take note of the judgment of the Apex Court in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed and others reported in (1976) 1 SCC 671, wherein the tests to determine whether a person can be said to be an aggrieved person have been laid down, and the Court could not have treated the appellant as a stranger to the proceedings.

5. It is further contended that the learned Single Judge has adopted a narrow interpretation of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Further, the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the sanctioning authority acted as an appellate authority by appreciating the material on record, which is erroneous. It is further contended that the discretion exercised by the competent authority in rejecting the appellant’s request is arbitrary and has been influenced by the material placed by respondent No.3, which is per se illegal. The competent authority has taken into account irrelevant explanations