Sanction for prosecuting public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act requires independent application of mind, with prior written approval necessary for property investment by co-operative societies.

JUDGMENT :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

1. This Writ Petition (Crl.) has been filed challenging Ext,P5 order of sanction issued by the 1^st respondent under Section 19 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as amended in 2018 (for short ‘the PC Act, 2018’ hereinafter), pursuant to a direction issued by the learned Special Judge, Muvattupuzha and after the verdict in W.P. (C).No.38626/2024, dated 04.11.2024 rendered by this Court and the review petition thereof, filed as R.P.No.1373/2024, dated 23.01.2025.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioners, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, as well as the learned counsel appearing for the additional 3^rd respondent, who is the complainant before the Special Court.

3. The prime point argued by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners is that the main allegation considered by the 1^st respondent while issuing Ext.P5 sanction is the purchase of property by the Society in an area falling within the coastal regulation zone (CRZ). According to the learned counsel for the writ petitioners, mere purchase of property in CRZ itself is not an offence, even though the use of the property may be subject to restrictions and any construction thereon may require permission from the authority concerned. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the writ petitioners, Ext.P5 sanction order under Section 19 (1) of the PC Act, 2018, was issued to prosecute the petitioners alleging purchase of property in CRZ area, though the same by itself is not an independent offence under the PC Act, 2018. It is also pointed out that Ext.P5 sanction order does not speak of the fact that the order was issued on the ground of purchase of property for a higher sum and no materials to hold so also considered by the 1^st respondent while issuing Ext.P5 sanction. Therefore, Ext.P5 sanction is illegal and the same would require interference.

4. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners has placed decision of the Apex Court in Dhirendra Krishan v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. and Others, 1999 KHC 2411 with reference to paragraph No.21, which reads as under:

“21.A decision by an administrative authority whether to grant or to withhold sanction to prosecute a public servant is a very serious and important decision. The grant of sanction is not an idle formality but a solemn sacrosanct act which affords protection to public servants against frivolous prosecution. The sanctioning authority has to apply its own independent mind to arrive at a decision with regard to the question whether or not prosecution is to be sanctioned. The mind of the sanctioning authority should be free from bias or pressure of any sort as the discretion to grant or to with- hold sanction, vests absolutely in the sanctioning authority. If its discretion is shown to have been affected by any extraneous consideration and is not a result of application of its independent mind, the sanction stands vitiated. [See Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1979) 4 SCC 172 and Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, (1997) 7 SCC 622].”

Apart from that, the learned counsel further relies on the decisions in State (Anti Corruption Branch) Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi and Another v. Dr. R.C. Anand and Another, 2004 KHC 982 and CBI v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, 2013 KHC 4983 reiterating the ratio that a sanction is valid only when the authority applies its mind independently to the relevant materials, and that any sanction granted mechanically or under extraneous influence stood vitiated.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the additional 3^rd respondent taken attention of this Court to Rule 54 of the