JUDGMENT : B.K. Behera, J. - Upon hearing Mr. Patnaik for the petitioner and Mr. S. D. Das, the learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite party and on a consideration of the materials placed by the petitioner, we are of the view, for the brief reasons to follow, that there is no prima facie case for admission of the writ application. 2. A practising Advocate at Bhubaneswar, the petitioner has assailed the order of the Governor as per Annexure-2 refusing to accord sanction for the prosecution of Mr Janaki Ballav Patnaik, the Chief Minister of Orissa, which was sought u/s 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for commission of offences alleged in a copy of the petition of complaint enclosed to the application which had been Submitted to the Governor. The Chief Minister has not been made a party to this writ application." 3. The impugned order reads : "With reference to your application dated August 13, 1986 on behalf of your client Shri Haribandhu Das, I am directed to say that the Governor after careful consideration of the facts stated in the copy of the petition of complaint enclosed to the application, has been pleased to reject the prayer of Shri Das for sanction for prosecution of the Chief Minister." 4. We are not at one with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid order would show that there had been no application of mind by the Governor as it would clearly indicate that after a careful consideration of the allegations made in the petition of complaint enclosed to the application for according sanction, the Governor had rejected the prayer of the petitioner. 5. Even as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petition of complaint which the petitioner wanted to file in the Court after sanction by the Governor is not based on any clear, cogent and reliable materials in support of the allegations of commission of offences by the Chief Minister. Mr. Patnaik has submitted that newspaper reports, publications in the Illustrated Weekly of India and some untested affidavits are the basis of the petition of complaint. When Mr. Patnaik was asked as to whether the petitioner had contacted the persons whose affidavits had been referred to in the petition of complaint, his reply was that the petitioner might have contacted them. Patnaik has submitted that newspaper reports, publications in the Illustrated Weekly of India and some untested affidavits are the basis of the petition of complaint. When Mr. Patnaik was asked as to whether the petitioner had contacted the persons whose affidavits had been referred to in the petition of complaint, his reply was that the petitioner might have contacted them. There is thus no material that the petitioner had even contacted the persons whose affidavits had been re!ied on in the petition of complaint before submitting the petition of complaint to the Governor for sanction. 6. An argument has been advanced on behalf of the petitioner that when an application is made for according sanction, the Governor was to accord sanction, but he had no power to refuse sanction. On the face of it, this contention cannot prevail. The authority which has the power to accord sanction has certainly the power to refuse it. 7. As has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh the grant of sanction is not an idle formality or an acrimonious exercise, but a solemn and sacrosanct act which affords protection "to Government servant against frivolous prosecutions and must, therefore, be strictly complied with before any prosecution can be launched. There must, therefore, be clear and cogent materials for prosecution before sanction is to be accorded and in the instant case, there was complete absence of material in support of the allegations made against the Chief Minister. 8. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the basis of the allegations was to be tested at the trial after sanction was accorded and could not be gone into by the Governor at the stage of consideration as to whether sanction was to be accorded. We see no forces in this contention. If this contention is accepted, countless persons will be prosecuted on false and untested accusations and without any materials indicating commission of offences by them. The facts alleged and the materials placed before the sanctioning authority must prima facie show that some offences have been committed by the person against whom sanction is sought. False and frivolous complaints directed at character assassination are not to be entertained. 9. The facts alleged and the materials placed before the sanctioning authority must prima facie show that some offences have been committed by the person against whom sanction is sought. False and frivolous complaints directed at character assassination are not to be entertained. 9. The learned Additional Standing Counsel has submitted that the action of the Governor taken without the advice of the Council of Ministers is not justiceable in view of the provision made in Art. 361 of the Constitution of India and he has invited our attention to the principle laid down to the same effect in Bijayananda Patnaik and Others Vs. President of India and Others. In the view we have taken regarding the factual aspects we do not feel ourselves called upon to examine this question. 10. For the foregoing reasons, we find no prima facia case and the writ application is accordingly dismissed. K.P. Mohapatra, J. 11. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed