1
W.P.No.10402/10
Sanjay Varshney State of M.P. & others
13.8.2010
Shri A.P.Shroti, Counsel for petitioner.
Shri Rahul Jain, Dy.Adovate General for respondents.
This petition is directed against an order Annexure P/9 dated
22.4.2010 of the State of M.P., Law and Legislative Department, Bhopal
by which the department has granted sanction to the Economic Offence
Bureau to prosecute the petitioner. The sanction has been accorded
under Section 19(1)(b)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read
with section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Law
Department accorded permission to prosecute the petitioner under
Section 120-B of IPC and under section 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
This petition has been filed on the grounds:-
(i) That as per order of the State Government Annexure P/4 dt.
28.2.1998, before granting permission by the Law Department, it was
obligatory on the part of the Law Department to seek an opinion of the
concerned Administrative Department and after getting the opinion of
the concerned Administrative Department, the Law department should
have taken a decision in respect of according sanction for prosecution.
That the Law Department before grant of sanction referred the matter to
the Administrative Department-Tribal Welfare Department. The
Administrative Department vide Annexure P/5 submitted its opinion and
recommended that there is no necessity to prosecute the petitioner.
(ii) The Law Department without considering the reasons and
opinion of the Administrative Department as per Annexure P/5 has
accorded sanction vide Annexure P/9.
(iii) Learned counsel for petitioner has referred various paras of order
Annexure P/9 to support his contention that there was no application of
mind by the Law Department for according sanction in reference to the
opinion of the Administrative Department.
(iv) That the concerned Minister of Tribal Welfare Department in his
letter dated 22.5.2010 has specifically noted down that the Law
2
W.P.No.10402/10
Sanjay Varshney State of M.P. & others
13.8.2010
Department has not expressed its disagreement with the opinion of the
Department then matter may be referred for reconsideration to the Law
Department but the Law Department has not reconsidered the matter. It
is submitted the order Annexure P/9 may be quashed.
Reliance is placed to a judgment of the Apex Court in M.P.
Special Police Establishment Vs. State of M.P. (2004) 8 SCC 788 in
support of his contentions.
The learned counsel for State supported the order.
From the perusal of the facts of the case, we find that the Law
Department in its sanction Annexure P/9 has referred certain facts of
the case and for ready reference, we reproduce para 5 of the sanction
order:-
“5- vuqla/kku es ;g ik;k x;k fd lkekU; oxZ ds fjDr in 101
ds fo:} fu;ekuqlkj rhu xquk mEehnokjksa dks lk{kkRdkj gsrq cqyk;k
tkuk Fkk ysfdu ek= 66 mEehnokjksa dks gh lk{kkRdkj gsrq cqyk;k
x;k tcfd fu/kkZfjr ;ksX;rk okys 853 mEehnokj miyC/k FksaA
vuqlwfpr tutkfr oxZ ds 132 in] vuqlwfpr tkfr oxZ ds dqy 8
fjDr in fiNM+k oxZ ds dqy 39 fjDr in ds fo:} rhu xquk
mEehnokjks dks u cqykdj dze’k% 531] 69] 128 yksxks dks cqykdj
dze’k% 135]20]71 mEehnokjksa dks vf/kd cqykdj ykHk igqpk;k x;kA
f’k{kk dehZ oxZ 2 dyk ladk; vuqlwfpr tkfr oxZ dh mEehnokj
dqekjh ‘kdqUryk [kkiM+s ds vad 24-43 dks dksbZ vuqHko u gksrs gq,
Hkh lk{kkRdkj es cqyk;k x;k tcfd vuqlwfpr tkfr ds eSfjV lwph ds
ljy dazekd 70 ij efgyk ds vad 30-37 gksrs gq, Hkh mls lk{kkRdkj
es ugh cqyk;k x;k A blh rjg vuqlwfpr tutkfr oxZ ds eSfjV
lwph ds ljy dazekd 148 es efgyk ds vad 36-07 gksrs gq, Hkh
lk{kkRdkj es ugh cqyk;k x;kA tcfd eSfjV lwph ds ljy dzekad
597 es mDr laoxZ ds iq:”k laoxZ ds izkIrkad 25-47 gksrs gq, Hkh
lk{kkRdkj es cqyk;k x;k tcfd blls vf/kd vad izkIr djus okys
ljy dzekad 514 ds izkIrkad 26-23 gksrs gq, Hkh lk{kkRdkj es ugh
cqyk;k x;kA ljy dzekad 670 ds izkIrkad 24-73 dks lk{kkRdkj es
3W.P.No.10402/10
Sanjay Varshney State of M.P. & others
13.8.2010
cqyk;k x;k ijUrq vf/kd vad okys ljy dzekad 514 ds izkIrkad
26-23 gksus ds ckn Hkh lk{kkRdkj es ugh cqyk;k x;k bl izdkj de
vad okyksa dks cqykdj ykHk igqpk;k x;kA fiNM+k oxZ ds ljy
dzekad 86 ij nf’kZr fiNM+k oxZ efgyk ds izkIrkad 30-55 dks
lk{kkRdkj es ugh cqyk;k x;k o blls Hkh de vad izkIr djus okys
ljy dzekad 1927 ds ikIrkad 30-40 gksrs gq, Hkh lk{kkRdkj es
cqykdj ykHk igqpk;k x;kA blh izdkj mDr laoxZ dh eSfjV lwph ds
ljy dzekad 309] 381 489] dzekad 614 ds vad de gksrs gq, Hkh
mUgsa lk{kkRdkj es cqyk;k x;k tcfd ljy dzekad 198] 203 ds vf/
kd vad gksrs gq, Hkh ugh cqyk;k x;kA ljy dzekad 41] 42]133 ds
mEehnokjksa dks fu/kkZfjr ;ksX;rk u gksrs gqw, Hkh lk{kkRdkj es cqyk;k
x;kA f’k{kkdehZ oxZ&2 dyka ladk; lkekU; oxZ dh eSfjV lwph ds
ljy dzekad 30 dh fu/kZfjr U;wure ;ksX;rk u gksrs gq, lk{kkRdkj es
cqyk;k x;k A tcfd ljy dzekad 51]75 dh ;ksX;rk gksus ds ckn Hkh
lk{kkRdkj es ugh cqyk;k x;kA ljy dzekad 52] 62 dks ,d o”kZ dk
vuqHko gksrs gq, Hkh lk{kkRdkj gsrq ugh cqyk;k x;k tcfd ljy
dzekad 75]167]224 dks vuqHko u gksrs gq, Hkh lk{kRdkj es cqyk;k
x;k A ljy dzekd 61 ds vad vf/kd gksrs gq, Hkh lk{kkRdkj es
ugh cqyk;k x;kA mDr d`R; ds fy, mDr vkjksihx.k ds vykok
vkjksih Jh v’kksd o.kZoky] th-,e->k mRrjnk;h gSA lk{kkRdkj es
fu;ekuqlkj p;u lfefr es fo”k; fo’ks”kK dh fu;qDr ugh dh xbZA
fnukad 25-06-98 dks f’k{kk lfefr ds lHkkifr jkts’k frokjh dh v/;
{krk es lk{kkRdkj fy;s x;s mles eq[; dk;Zikyu vf/kdkjh Jh lat;
ok”.ksZ; lgk;d vk;qDr o ;w-,l-f}osnh mi lapkyd f’k{kk lfefr ds
vU; lnL; fo’ks”kK Jh ,y-Mh-cM[kkus izkpk;Z Jh ,l-vkj-usrke
izkpk;Z Jh ,l-,l- JhokLro O;k[;krk Jh ,e-ds-nkl izkpk;Z Jh ts-ih-iVSy izkpk;Z mifLFkr FksA mifLFkr lnL;ksa dks rhu xzqi es
foHkkftr dj rhu cksMZ rS;kj fd;s x;sA lfefr ds lnL;ksa }kjk
lfefr es Hkkx fy;k x;k fdUrq mDr O;fDr;ksa dks HkrhZ fu;eksa ds
izko/kku fu;e 5 ¼8½ ds vuqlkj ftyk iapk;r cLrj }kjk p;u
lfefr dk lnL; fu;qDr djus laca/kh dksbZ vkns’k tkjh djuk ugh
ik;k x;k A ;g ik;k x;k fd Jherh ehuk eFkjkuh ds lk{kRdkj
4W.P.No.10402/10
Sanjay Varshney State of M.P. & others
13.8.2010
vadks es ;ksx 6 dks dkVdj vyx ls 11 fy[k dj ikap vadks dh o`f}
dh xbZA dqekjh xhrk izlkn ds vadks dh vkB vadks dh xq:cpu flag
usrke ds vadksa es ikap vadks dh dqekjh v:.kk ds vadksa es 5 vadksa
dh dqekjh xhrk ;kno ds vadks es pkj vadks dh vk’kk mbds ds vadks
es 7 vadks dh deh vksOgjjkbZfaVx dj dh xbZA ;g ik;k x;k fd
HkrhZ fu;eksa ds izko/kkukuqlkj f’k{kk lfefr }kjk uke fufnZ”V nks
fo”k; fo’ks”kK ftles ,d efgyk gksuk pkfg;s FkhA fdUrq lk{kkRdkj
gsrq ,d gh fo”k; fo’ks”kK Jh usrke dk gksuk ik;k x;kA blh rjg
f’k{kk dehZ oxZ&1 fo”k; laLd`r ds lk{kkRdkj es ,d gh fo”k;
fo’ks”kK Jh vkbZ-vkj-[kwaVs dk gksuk ik;k x;kA mDr d`R; ds fy, Jh
eukst xksfoy o vkjksih Jh lat; ok”.ksZ; mRrjnk;h ik;s x;s A ;g
Hkh ik;k x;k fd f’k{kkdehZ oxZ&1 fo”k; vFkZ’kkL= ds lk{kkRdkj es
deys’k Bkdqj ds vadksa es 4 vadks dh Jherh lqfe=k nsokaxu ds vadksa
es 6 vadksa dh Jherh lqeu ofxZl ds vadks es 2 vadks dh vt;
dqekj ikaMs ds vadksa es 11 vadks dh] dqekjh Lusgyrk ;kno ds vadksa
es 2 vadks dh vksOgjjkbZfVx dj o`f} dh xbZA mDr =qfV gsrq Jh
eukst xksfoy o Jh lat; ok”.ksZ; nks”kh ik;s x;sA bfrgkl fo”k; ds
lk{kkRdkj es dq- lhek lhoku ds vadksa es 2 vadks dh Hkkjrh nsokaxu
ds vadksa es 4 vadks dh o`f} o nhun;ky lkgw ds vadkas es 3 vadksa dh
deh vksOgjjkbZfVax dj dh xbZA HkrhZ fu;eksa ds izko/kku dk ikyu u
djrs gq, flQZ ,d fo”k; fo’ks”kK Jh ,y-Mh-cj[kkus dks j[kk x;k A
jktuhfr fo”k; ds lk{kkRdkj es Jh fczts’k frokjh ds vadksa es 2 vadksa
dh] Jherh Hkkjrh nhoku ds vadksa es 5 vadks dh dqwekjh ‘;kek ds
vadksa es rhu vadks dh fyys’k dqekj lkgw ds vadksa es 3 vadks dh o`f}
vksOgj jkbZfaVx dj dh xbZA ,d gh fo”k; fo’ks”kK Jh t-ih-iVsy dks
j[kk x;k A vaxzsth fo”k; ds lk{kkRdkj es Jherh e/kq ijost ds vadksa
es 3 vadksa dh o`f} dh xbZA vuqi dqekj fo’okl ds ;ksx es 1 vad
dh deh vksOgj jkbZfVax dj dh xbZ A lk{kkRdkj es fu;e ds
fo:} ,d gh fo”k; fo’ks”kK dqekj e/kq oekZ dks j[kk x;kA xf.kr
fo”k; ds lk{kkRdkj es Hkh fu;e fo:} ,d gh fo”k; fo’ks”kK Jh ,e-
ds-nkl dks j[kk x;kA blh rjg tho foKku] jlk;fud ‘kkL=]
HkkSfrd ‘kkL= okf.kT; Hkwxksy] d`f”k] ,ao x`g foKku ds lk{kkRdkj es
5W.P.No.10402/10
Sanjay Varshney State of M.P. & others
13.8.2010
p;u lfefr dk xBu ,ao lfpo p;u lfefr dh fu;qfDr izko/kkuksa
dk mYya?ku dj dh xbZA f’k{kk lfefr ds mifLFkr lnL; o
vf/kdkjh dks gh p;u lfefr dk lnL; ekurs gq, lk{kkRdkj laiUu
djk;k x;k A ck;ksykth fo”k; ds lk{kkRdkj es dqekjh ‘kkgtagk csxe
ds vadksa es ,d vad dh o`f} dh xbZA”The Law Department in para 3 of the order has specifically
referred that in the case of petitioner Sanjay Varshney, the
Administrative Department has expressed its disagreement for grant of
prosecution, but for the reasons stated in the oder it has granted
sanction for the prosecution.From the perusal of the opinion of the Department Annexure P/5,
we find that in respect of Charge No.5, the Department has expressed
its opinion that there was mistake of the petitioner. So far as other
charges are concerned, the Department has expressed its
disagreement in respect of grant of sanction. But from the perusal of the
facts, it appears that there were serious allegations against the
petitioner in respect of non-inviting candidates who were more
meritorious and achieved higher marks and persons who had got lesser
marks were invited in the interview. The Interview Board was not
constituted in accordance with law. Apart from this, serious allegations
are in respect of overwriting in respect of the marks obtained by the
candidates. The Law Department found that to give benefit to particular
candidates, the marks were manipulated by overwriting and in this
regard, prima facie the petitioner was found responsible. From the
perusal of Annexure P/5, we find that all these facts which are referred
in para 5 of the order passed by the Law Department were not
considered by the Administrative Department and without considering
facts extensively in respect of manipulation of the marks, the
Administrative Department expressed disagreement for according
sanction for prosecution.6 W.P.No.10402/10 Sanjay Varshney State of M.P. & others 13.8.2010`It appears that on the recommendation of the concerned
Minister, the matter was placed before the Law Department and the
Law Department on 1.6.2010 has not agreed with the aforesaid and
refused to reconsider earlier order on the ground that disagreement of
the department was referred in para 3 of the order. The scope of
interference in such matter is limited. This Court cannot sit as an
appellate Court to examine merits of the order passed by the Law
Department for according sanction. Only process of exercise of the
powers by the executive can be looked into and not the decision. The
Apex Court in M.P. Special Police Establish (supra), in para 29 held
that it is now well settled that refusal to take into consideration a
relevant fact or acting on the basis of irrelevant and extraneous factors
not germane to the purpose of arriving at the conclusion would vitiate an
administrative order. But in the present case, factual position is entirely
different. The Law Department has taken into consideration of the facts
which are referred in para 5 (supra) and the administrative department
without looking to the aforesaid facts has superficially expressed
disagreement for granting sanction.The Apex Court in State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu
(2005) 11 SCC 600 in para 16 of the judgment considered procedure
for according sanction. The Apex Court held that the grant of sanction is
an executive act and validity thereof cannot be tested in the light of
principles applied to quasi-judicial orders. The Apex Court held thus:-“The two pronged test laid down therein has been amply
satisfied in the instant case. The sanction orders on their
face indicate that all relevant material viz. the FIR,
disclosure statements, recovery memos, draft charge-
sheet and other materials on record were placed before
the sanctioning authority. The fact that the sanctioning
authority perused all this material is also discernible from
the recital in the sanction orders. An elaborate narration of
facts culled out from the record placed before the
sanctioning authority and the discussion as to the
applicability of each and every section of the penal
provision quoted therein is not an imperative requirement.7 W.P.No.10402/10 Sanjay Varshney State of M.P. & others 13.8.2010A pedantic repetition from what is stated in the FIR or the
draft charge-sheet or other documents is not what is called
for in order to judge whether there was due application of
mind.”In State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Virender Kumar Tripathi
(2009) 15 SCC 533, the Apex Court considering the similar question
that the Law and Legislative Department was required to consult parent
department of the accused as per circular/order of the State
Government and therefore, the sanction was proper or not, considering
this question, the Apex Court held that the sanction was granted in the
name of the Governor of State by Additional Secretary, Department of
Law and Legislative, hence requirement of advice at the most was an
interdepartmental matter. The Apex Court in para 8 held thus:-“8. So far as the defect in sanction aspect is concerned,
the circular on which the High Court has placed reliance
needs to be noted. The Circular in question is dated 9.2.1988
the relevant portion reads as follows:-“The Government also decided that before giving
approval of prosecution, the Principal Secretary,
Law and Legal Department will obtain the advice
of department concerned.”
A bare perusal of the paragraph shows that before giving
approval for prosecution, advice of the department
concerned was necessary. The question arises whether the
absence of advice renders the sanction inoperative.
Undisputedly the sanction has been given by the Department
of Law and Legislative Affairs. The State Government had
granted approval of the prosecution. As noted above, the
sanction was granted in the name of the Governor of the
State by the Additional Secretary, Department of Law and
Legislative Affairs. The advice at the most is an
interdepartmental matter.
The law laid down by the Apex Court in Virendra Kumar
Tripathi (supra) is applicable with full force in this case.
In these circumstances, we do not find any merit in this petition.
This petition is found without merit and is dismissed with no order as to
costs.
8
W.P.No.10402/10
Sanjay Varshney State of M.P. & others
13.8.2010
We make it clear that we have considered the case in respect of
according sanction by the Law Department. Any observation made in
this order shall not come in the way of the petitioner to agitate the
matter before Court of law and the concerned Court shall be free to deal
and decide the matter in accordance with law.
No order as to costs. C.C. as per rules.
(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (J.K.Maheshwari) C. Judge Judge
