ORDER
H.G. Ramesh, J.
1. In these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 16-1-2001 (Annexure-E) passed by the Karnataka Upa-Lokayukta according sanction under Section 14 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (‘the Lokayukta Act’) for their prosecution for offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘the P.C. Act, 1988’) r/w. 120B and 34 of IPC. The petitioners have also challenged the order dated 6-2-2001 passed by XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bangalore City in Special C.C. No. 377 2001 taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences. The said order is produced as Annexure-G in W.P. No. 14631/2001 and as Annexure-F in W.P. No. 15364/2001.
2. I have heard Sri S.K. Venkataka Reddy, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ravivarma Kumar, Learned Senior Counsel for the Upa-Lokayukta and Sri A.G. Shivanna, Learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the impugned orders.
3. Sri S.K. Venkata Reddy, Learned Counsel for the petitioners urged several contentions in support of the petitions. It is unnecessary to go into all of them as the impugned order of the Upa-Lokayukta is liable to be quashed on the sole grounds that he had no power Under Section 14 of the Lokayukta Act to accord sanction for prosecution of the petitioners for offences punishable under the P.C. Act, 1988.
4. After coming into force of the P.C. Act, 1988, no sanction can be accorded under Section 14 of the Lokayukta Act for prosecution for the offences for which previous sanction is required under Section 19 of the P.C. Act, 1988. This is because of the repugnancy between the aforesaid two provisions of law relating to grant of sanction for prosecution. The P.C. Act, 1988 is a law enacted by parliament subsequent to the Lokayukta Act and hence the Lokayukta Act though had received the assent of the President as provided under Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India, its provisions, if repugnant to the provisions of the P.C. Act, 1988, will not prevail over the later Act of parliament to the extent of repugnancy.
When a State Act becomes repugnant to a parliamentary law enacted later, Article 254(2) does not apply. The proviso to Clause (2) of Article 254 curtails the ambit of Clause (2), Article 254(2) becomes applicable only when the State law is repugnant to an earlier law enacted by parliament.
5. A reference to the relevant text of the two provisions is necessary to examine the aspect of ‘repugnancy’ and its extent.
Section 14 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984:
14. Initiation of Prosecution.- If after investigation into any complaint the Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta is satisfied that the public servant has committed any criminal offence in a Court of law for such offence, then, he may pass an order to that effect and initiate prosecution of the public servant concerned and if prior sanction of any authority is required for such prosecution, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any law, such sanction shall be deemed to have been granted by the appropriate authority on the date of such order.
Section 19 of the P.C. Act, 1988:
19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution.-
(1) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction,-
(a) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of the Union and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government, of that Government;
(b) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of a State and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government, of that Government;
(c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office.
(2) …
A plain reading of the above would show that Section 14 of the Lokayukta Act is repugnant to Section 19 of the P.C. Act, 1988 to the extent it confers power to grant sanction for prosecution for the offences for which previous sanction is required under Section 19 of the P.C. Act, 1988. The repugnancy arose in the year 1988 when parliament enacted the P.C. Act, 1988. The effect of this repugnancy is that Section 14 does not confer power on the Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta to order prosecution against a public servant for offences enumerated in Section 19 of the P.C. Act, 1988 without obtaining the previous sanction of the Government or the authority concerned, wherever such previous sanction is required. In the present case, previous sanction of the State Government was required under Section 19 of the P.C. Act, 1988 for prosecution of the petitioners as they were employees of the State Government. Hence, ordering prosecution of the petitioners without the previous sanction of the State Government cannot be sustained in law.
6. It is relevant to State that the President’s assent to a State Law Under Article 254(2) does not confer irrevocable immunity to the State law from the operation of the rule of repugnancy. The fact that the President’s assent has been obtained for a State law under Clause (2) of Article 254 will not make it immune from attack for repugnancy to a subsequent parliamentary enactment. The immunity will be available only till parliament makes any law with respect to the same matter making a provision conflicting with the State law. In view of the proviso to Clause 2 of Article 254, parliament can enact any law repugnant to the earlier State law which had received the assent of the President. When parliament enacts such a law, the State law would be void to the extent of repugnancy.
7. Sri Ravivarma Kumar, Learned Senior Counsel for the Upa-Lokayukta fairly and rightly conceded to the legal position that Section 14 of the Lokayukta Act will not override Section 19 of the P.C. Act, 1988, as the latter being a subsequent parliamentary enactment.
8. In the result, the order dated 16-1-2001 (Annexure-E) passed by the Upa-lokayukta under Section 14 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 according sanction to prosecute the petitioners for offences punishable under certain provisions of the P.C. Act, 1988 is quashed. Consequently, the order dated 6-2-2001 passed by XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bangalore City in Special C.C. No. 37/2001 taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences also stands quashed.
9. The Writ Petitions accordingly stand disposed of in the above terms. No costs.