Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12. In Manish Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12684 of 2012, it was held as under :

"As already stated, in the instant matter too the sanction granted and the draft to grant sanction are ad verbatim same. The Director, Mines and Geology appears to have [2024:RJ-JD:43289-DB] (11 of 12) [SAW-707/2023] adopted the draft ipse dixit. Section 19 of the Act of 1988 postulates absolute authority to grant sanction for prosecution to the competent authority, as such, the competent authority is required to apply its own mind by considering all relevant facts. The competent authority may avail [2025:RJ-JP:5846] (45 of 68) [CRLMP-6395/2022] assistance of other persons, but in no case, any other authority can initiate the process of consideration for grant of sanction and instruct the competent authority for granting sanction. In the case in hand, the consideration for grant of sanction, as a matter of fact, was initiated by the Anti Corruption Bureau by sending a draft for granting sanction for prosecution. The Anti Corruption Bureau could have communicated all relevant facts on the basis of which prosecution sanction could have been granted, but in no case, the Bureau could have instructed for grant of prosecution sanction under a proposed and drafted document. The prosecution sanction granted in the instant matter by the Director, Mines and Geology, Udaipur under the letter dated 18.10.2012 on face depicts non- application of mind and abdication of the powers by the Anti Corruption Bureau. The same, therefore, is illegal."

13. Applying the ratio of the above judgments to the present case, we hold that the proposed draft document for grant of prosecution sanction furnished by the Anti Corruption Bureau to the sanctioning authority cannot be upheld in terms of Manish Mathur and is therefore declared illegal."

D. Vijay Kumar Singhal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., (S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No.5351/2023) decided on 07.10.2024, wherein the Coordinate Bench of this Court has observed as under:-