1
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1080/2010
Rajendra Singh Meena.
vs.
Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors.
Date : 10.2.2010
HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J.
Mr.Sanjeet Purohit, for the petitioner.
– – – – –
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner is facing the prosecution in
pursuance of the FIR lodged against him under
Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120B IPC.
According to the petitioner, the appointing
authority considered all the facts and thereafter
reached to the conclusion that it is not a fit
case for grant of sanction for prosecution of the
petitioner. However, the Deputy Secretary to the
Government of Rajasthan, Department of Energy vide
communication dated 24.12.2009 (Annex.8) and the
Secretary (Administration), Jodhpur Discom stated
that the prosecution sanction be issued. According
to learned counsel for the petitioner, once the
appointing authority has decided that it is not a
fit case for grant of prosecution sanction, then
he cannot at the instance of the other authorities
grant the prosecution sanction.
2
Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon
two judgments of this Court namely, (1) Kishan Lal
vs. State of Raj. & Ors. reported in 2009(2) RLW
1412 (Raj.) and (2) unreported judgment delivered
in the case of Hanuman Singh Vishnoi vs. State of
Raj. & Ors. decided on 14.10.2009.
I considered the submissions of learned
counsel for the petitioner and perused the facts
of the case as well as considered the judgments
relied upon by him.
It is clear from both the judgments referred
above that in those cases, after the direction of
the Deputy Secretary to the Government/Higher
Authority/Other Authority, the prosecution
sanction was granted by the appointing authority,
therefore, this Court interfered in those orders
granting prosecution sanction. After two judgments
referred above, the position became more clear and
the appointing authority’s duties are very much
clear and unless these two documents are acted
upon by the appointing authority, the petitioner
cannot challenge the recommendation only which
itself has no penal consequences and the
authorities are yet to examine the effect of the
directions issued in Annexures-8 and 9, therefore,
at this stage, no case is made out for
interference of this Court.
3
In view of the above, this writ petition is
hereby dismissed.
However, the petitioner will be free to avail
the appropriate remedy at appropriate stage if the
prosecution sanction is granted against him.
(PRAKASH TATIA), J.
S.Phophaliya