[2026:RJ-JD:9994]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11761/2023

1. Darshan Singh Solanki S/o Balbir Ram, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Ward No. 04, New Khunja, Near Bawari Gurudwara, Hanumangarh, (Raj.).

2. Manish Chaudhary S/o Brahamswaroop Chaudhary, Aged About 38 Years, R/o A-23, Krishna Nagar, Lalkothi, Jaipur, (Raj.).

----Petitioners Versus

1. Union Of India, Through Chairman, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, Central Board Of Indirect Tax And Customs Goods And Service Tax, New Delhi, India.

2. The Commissioner, Cgst Commissionerate, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

3. Investigation Officer, Corruption Bureau, Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C.S. Kotwani Mr. Chinmoy Kotwani Mr. Abhijit Singh For Respondent(s) : -

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

ORDER

24/02/2026

1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the validity and propriety of the order dated 21.10.2021 (Annexure-08) issued by the Commissioner, CGST Commissionerate, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, whereby sanction for their prosecution was granted. The challenge is primarily on the ground that the sanction order is ad verbatim reproduction of the draft sanction forwarded by the Superintendent of Police, ACB, Bikaner Range. In other words, the sanction to prosecute the petitioners was granted without independent application of mind, which is contrary to the mandate and object of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).

2. The record indicates that the ACB received a complaint from one Deepak Chaddha alleging, inter alia, that he was being pressurized by the present petitioners to pay illegal gratification, failing which his firm would be subjected to a raid by officials of the CGST Commissionerate, Jodhpur. After verification of the demand, the ACB laid a trap; however, the same was unsuccessful. Thereafter, the Superintendent of Police, ACB, Bikaner Range forwarded the entire material collected during investigation, confirming the alleged demand by the petitioners, along with a draft/proforma sanction order to the competent authority of the respondent department, i.e., the Commissioner, CGST, Jodhpur, seeking sanction to prosecute the petitioners under various provisions of the PC Act and the IPC. A copy of the draft/proforma sent by the ACB has been placed on record with the additional affidavit at page 128 of the paper book.

3. The sole contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the Commissioner, CGST, Jodhpur, while issuing the impugned sanction order dated 21.10.2021 (Annexure-08), failed to record reasons after independently applying his mind to the facts of the case, thereby vitiating the sanction granted against the petitioners. In support of this contention, the petitioners have relied upon the following judgments:

• State of Karnataka Vs. Ameerjan reported in (2007) 11 SCC

273.

• Ganga Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. CWP No.1138/2018)

• Munish Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B.

CWP No.7156/2007).

• Abdul Aziz Gauri Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. SAW No.1231/2014).

• Subhash Bhatia & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. (S.B. CWP No.590/2010)

• Manish Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. CWP No.12684/2012).

4. This Court in the case of Subhash Bhatia (Supra) has held as under:-

"The authority competent to remove a public servant from service is clothed with the power to grant sanction for prosecution to such public servant by the Legislature with a definite intention as that authority being having administrative and disciplinary control on the person concerned is in a position to assess and weigh the accusation on basis of intimate knowledge of the work and conduct and also having day to day knowledge of overall administrative interest of the department.

The sanction for prosecution represent a deliberate decision and that requires objective satisfaction of the competent authority about a prima facie case against the person facing accusation.