ORDER
H. Rangavittalachar, J.
1. One M. S. Prithiviraj, the husband and father of petitioners 1(a), (b) and (c) was the owner of land bearing Sy. No. 116/6, Koramangala having purchased the same in the year 1982 from one K. M. Govinda Reddy. He contends in the writ petition that he had put up a commercial complex in the said land. However, it came to be demolished by the Bangalore Development Authority on the ground that the construction was made encroaching the BDA’s property. Later, according to the petitioner, the Commissioner of the BDA Sri Jayakar Jerome-2nd respondent herein, had given a press statement as under : This is the first time in the history of the State such huge unauthorised structure has been demolished. The 40 Ft. Prithvi Mansion had come upon a BDA site measuring 200 x 200 ft. near Koramangala Police Station. The value of the site is estimated to be more than 3 crores is noted. The building owner Mr. Prithvi Raj had approached the Court seeking stay against demolition. However, the decision of the Court went in favour of BDA in every case. On 45 cases, the site owner has approached even the High Court and in 9 cases, the Court imposed costs on him. Finally today we went ahead with the demolition”. Feeling this statement was made with an intention to defame him, the said Prithvi Raj made an application to the State Government purporting to be under Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code for sanction to prosecute the Commissioner — Mr. Jaykar Jerome for criminal defamation. The State Government by an order dated 9-11-2001 — Annexure X has rejected the request of the petitioner. The order is questioned in this petition.
2. The only contention of the petitioner is that the order at Annexure X is not a speaking order, inasmuch as, no reasons are furnished by the State Government for rejecting the sanction prayed for. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that under Sections 197, Criminal Procedure Code, the State was obliged to give reasons. Having not done so, the order is liable to be struck down.
3. In reply, Sri C. B. Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing for 2nd respondent submitted that under Sections 197, Criminal Procedure Code, the State is not adjudicating any rights of the parties nor by passing of an order under Sections 197 any interest of the petitioner can be said to be affected. He prayed for dismissal of the petition.
4. In order to appreciate the rival contentions and to consider whether the State Government is obliged to give reasons while rejecting the application for grant of sanction, under Sections 197(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, it is necessary to state the scope of Sections 197(1). It reads :
197. Prosecution of Judges and Public Servants :
(1) When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction–
a. in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government;
b. in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of the State Government.
5. A bare reading of Sections 197 does not indicate that while the State Government is exercising the power under this section, it is called upon to adjudicate any rights of the parties. It only performs an administrative function in contra distinction to quasi judicial function.
6. This is clear by the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, . The Court while examining the scope of Sections 197, Criminal Procedure Code has held : “It is equally well settled that before granting sanction the authority or the appropriate Government must have before it the necessary report and the material facts which prima facie establish the commission of of
fence charged for and the appropriate Government would apply their mind to those
facts. The order of sanction is only an administrative act, and not a quasi judicial one
nor a lis is involved. Therefore, the order of
sanction need not contain detailed reasons
in support thereof. This principle of law is
reiterated in the subsequent decision in
State of Maharashtra v. Ishwar Piraji
Kalpatri, .
7. Thus, when the State Government is not obliged to give reasons while granting sanction to prosecute an official, equally so, it is not obliged to give reasons when it rejects to grant the sanction to prosecute an official.
8. For the reasons stated above, I do not
find any merit in the contention of the petitioner. The impugned order/endorsement of
the State Government therefore, cannot be
faulted.
Petition is dismissed. No costs.