Judgment 1. We have heard Shri Basudev Prasad, Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Bibhuti Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on the petition at flag *B in which prayer has been made for ordering the stay of further proceedings in Vigilance Case No. 47 of 1986 (Special Case No. 26 of 1986) pending before the Special Judge, North Bihar, Patna, till the final hearing of the writ petition. 2. The petition had been filed in the following background. The petitioner filed the writ petition for quashing of the First Information Report in the aforementioned case which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 409 and 120 of the Indian Penal Code and various sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 3. An order was passed on 7-1-1993 quashing the First Information Report on the ground that no final form had been submitted for six years and sanction for prosecution had not been given by the Law Department. Against the order dated 7-1-1993 the respondent-State filed SLP (Cr) No. 2737 of 1993 giving rise to Criminal Appeal No. 529 of 1994 before the Supreme Court. The Apex Court had set aside the order of the High Court dated 7-1-1993. The order of the Apex Court reads as follows : "Leave granted. After passing of the impugned order of the High Court, the Government of Bihar has accorded sanction under Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act on 11-2-1994 to prosecute the respondent. Thus, one of the grounds for quashing the proceedings vanishes. The other one with regard to delay in launching the prosecution is untenable having no legal basis. Neither of the grounds remains on the strength of which the impugned order of the High Court could be maintained. Thus, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and send the matter back to it for reconsideration leaving it open to the respondent to question the validity and legality of the sanction or continuance of proceedings on any other ground in accordance with law. The appeal is allowed accordingly." The petitioner has filed a supplementary petition assailing the sanction order as contained in Memo No. 522 dated 11-2-1994 (Annsxure-13) issued by the Department of Water Resources (Irrigation), Government of Bihar, on various grounds mentioned in paragraph 13 of the supplementary affidavit. The appeal is allowed accordingly." The petitioner has filed a supplementary petition assailing the sanction order as contained in Memo No. 522 dated 11-2-1994 (Annsxure-13) issued by the Department of Water Resources (Irrigation), Government of Bihar, on various grounds mentioned in paragraph 13 of the supplementary affidavit. The petitioner has also alleged mala fides against the Minister of Water Resources and made a prayer for quashing of the prosecution also on soma other grounds. 4. While arguing for stay, learned counsel for the petitioner has emphasised the fact that previously the Law Department of the State Government has examined the whole matter thoroughly and after examination took the decision to refuse proposal for giving sanction for prosecution and an order was issued by the Law Department dated 7th September, 1992 (Annexure-6 of the writ petition). Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that it is the Law Department which is competent department to sanction the prosecution and not the Water Resources Department which has issued the sanction (Annexure-13). He further contended that once after examination of the whole matter the Law Department had already concluded that the sanction should be refused, it was illegal for the Water Resources Department to review the previous decision of the Law Department which alone was competent to accord sanction or to refuse sanction. He has contended that further proceedings in the case relating to that case should be stayed for this reason. 5. On the other hand, Sri Bibhuti Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that he has received a copy of the supplementary petition only on 20-9-1994 and counter affidavit shall be filed after obtaining instructions from the concerned respondents. According to him, the prayer for stay of further proceedings in the case cannot be allowed in view of the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He further contended that after submission of the charge-sheet in the case and issue of sanction order (Annexure-13) the Special Judge has already taken cognizance of various offences of the Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act and since the petitioner has not annexed the order taking cognizance and has not made any specific prayer for quashing of the order taking cognizance, no stay should be granted as prayed by the petitioner. 6. 6. On carefull consideration of the submissions, we are of the opinion that no direction for stay of the further proceeding should be issued lor the following reasons. 7. Sub-section (3) of Section 19 of the said Act reads as follows : "(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) : (a) no finding, sentence or order passed by a special Judge shall be reversed or altered by a Court in appeal, confirmation or revision on the ground of absence of or any error, omission or irregulariry in, the sanction required under sub-section (1), unless the opinion of that Court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby ; (b) no Court shall stay the proceeding under this Act on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity has resulted in a failure of justice ; (c) no Court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on any other ground and no Court shall exercise the power of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any inquiry, trial, appeal or other proceedings." 8. There is also an explanation at the end of sub-section (4) of Section 19 of the said Act which reads as follows : Explanation.For the purposes of this section, (a) error includes competency of the authority to grant sanction ; (b) a sanction required for prosecution includes reference to any requirement that the prosecutions shall be at the instance of specific authority or with the sanction of a specified person or any requirement of a similar nature." 9. Obviously even competency of the authority to grant sanction comes within the definition of "error" and on account of any such error, omission, or irregularity, no stay should be granted as provided in clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. We also find some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that since the order taking cognizance has not been specifically assailed and challenged by the petitioner who has not brought that order on record, it will not be proper to stay, further proceedings pending before the Special Judge concerned. Moreover granting stay is likely to further delay onward proceedings of the case which seems to have been instituted long back in the year 1986. 10. Moreover granting stay is likely to further delay onward proceedings of the case which seems to have been instituted long back in the year 1986. 10. So in view of what we have stated above, we reject the petition at flag B