JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner at the relevant time was Patwari in the Canal Department. A trap was laid by the Anti-Corruption Department on the basis of a written First Information Report addressed to the Additional Superintendent of Police by one Ram Kumar. The trap was laid against the petitioner and one Madan Lal, Ziledar. It is said in the petition that the petitioner was at his house when the said Ram Kumar met him and he was assured by the petitioner that his parchi of water supply would not be cancelled provided he pays Rs. 300/- to him and Rs. 300/- to the Ziledar. While on the way to Raisinghnagar complainant Ram Kumar took his brother Rajendra Kumar along and said Rajendra Kumar stated that he was to deposit Rs. 1200/- on account of Irrigation Charges in his own account as well as in the account of his brother Ram Kumar and the Additional Superintendent of Police (Anti-Corruption) instructed Rajendra Kumar to approach the Patwari and find out the oustanding amount and deposit the same. Rajendra Kumar deposited a sum of Rs. 1,366/- and obtained a receipt. 2. Instructions were given to Ram Kumar to approach the Patwari and Ziledar and bring the Patwari to the house of the Ziledar where the alleged payment was to be made. It is said that the Ziledar and not at the Headquarters and the trap party awaited for his arrival. It is alleged that Ram Kumar met the Patwari behind the Railway Wagon and gave a signal to the Anti Corruption party and the petitioner was apprehended and in all an amount of Rs. 3,000/- was recovered. A receipt book was also seized by the Additional Superintendent of Police relating to the amounts realised by the petitioner and it is stated in the petition that the receipts issued by the petitioner completely accounted for the amount of Rs. 3,000/- found from him. 3. The Additional Superintendent of Police finally released the petitioner on bail after examining him and the Ziledar. A copy of the First Information Report and the proceedings drawn by the Additional Superintendent of Police have been placed as Annex. 1. 4. A representation through proper channel was made by the petitioner and the same is Annexure 2 and an affidavit of Ashok Kumar is Annex. 3. 5. A copy of the First Information Report and the proceedings drawn by the Additional Superintendent of Police have been placed as Annex. 1. 4. A representation through proper channel was made by the petitioner and the same is Annexure 2 and an affidavit of Ashok Kumar is Annex. 3. 5. On examination the Executive Engineer refuses to accord sanction for prosecution vide the order dated 7.10.1991 in spite of the request of the Anti Corruption Department. The order refusing to grant sanction in Annex. 4. 6. It is stated that soon thereafter i.e. on 11.10.1991 the same Executive Engineer granted sanction for prosecution and this order is placed as Annex. 5 and is under challenge in this petition. 7. In the reply, it is said that there was no compulsion on the Executive Engineer to review his previous order and the order granting sanction for prosecution was perfectly legal and valid. Since the Executive Engineer was not in the knowledge of complete facts he changed his view and reviewed the order. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is no power of review, and, thus, the order Annex. 5 granting sanction is straightaway liable to be set aside as being wholly without jurisdiction. It is next contended that vide Annex. 4 the sanction sought was declined and it is not understood as to what compelled the Executive Engineer just 3 days thereafter to review the order and grant the sanction. Learned counsel further proceeds that it is not the case of the other side that the Executive Engineer was not the competent authority and that the order refusing to grant sanction has been passed without application of mind and assuming that the order refusing to grant the sanction is accepted to be administrative in nature there is no express power conferred upon the authority to review the grant or refusing the sanction. Learned counsel further submits that even assuming that the authority had the power to review, the same could not and should not have been exercised without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner when the permission to grant sanction for prosecution had already been refused by the Executive Engineer and, thus, the petitioner could not be permitted to be prosecuted under the second order passed on review. 9. 9. Learned counsel further contends that no new facts or development took place after the first order and the only inference that can be drawn could be guessed that the review order was passed under compelling situation. 10. In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent State submits that the Executive Engineer had given reasons in paragraph 2 of the order laying down the circumstances and the material on which the matter was reviewed and the sanction was granted. It is next contended by the learned counsel that on the basis of some material which escaped notice or was not brought before the authority the Executive Engineer was fully competent to review the order on the basis of fresh material which came to be noticed by him in the impugned order and it cannot be said that the discretion has been exercised in an arbitrary manner violating Article 14 of the Constitution. To further stress his viewpoint the learned counsel has pressed in service a decision of the Patna High Court rendered in Mahanth Motilal Goswami v. State of Bihar, AIR 1993 Patna 171. In this authority, the question pertained to the appointment of a temporary trustee which could be appointed according to the deed of endowment and a duty in this respect had been cast upon the Board and per terms of the deed the Mahanth of the Math could be appointed by the disciples of its late founder and in order to be eligible the Mahanth had to be an unmarried person having renounced the world. The appointment in that case had been made pursuant to the recommendations of member of Parliament to the Chief Minister, which was held to be illegal and it was in that situation it was held that the consultation with a person who has no role to play under the statute by the statutory functionary must be held to be illegal and since the order of appointment of the Mahanth was void the special officer had jurisdiction to review the order. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has laid stress on a decision given by this Court delivered in Mukanchand v. State of Rajasthan, 1971 W.L.N. 616 which is a decision nearer to the point in question. It was held in this case that the sanction to prosecute a public servant granted by the State could not be withdrawn latter. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has laid stress on a decision given by this Court delivered in Mukanchand v. State of Rajasthan, 1971 W.L.N. 616 which is a decision nearer to the point in question. It was held in this case that the sanction to prosecute a public servant granted by the State could not be withdrawn latter. It was held that once the appropriate Government exhausted its power under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, cannot invoke the provisions of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act to withdraw the sanction, as the Government does not enjoy any such powers under specific provisions of law. In this view of the matter, the order was without jurisdiction and could not be sustained. 12. A decision of the Supreme Court has also been cited by the learned counsel given in Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Sitapur (U.P.), AIR 1987 Supreme Court 2186 and in para 11 their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held as under:- ''It is now well established that a quasi judicial authority cannot review its own order, unless the power of review is expressly conferred on it by the statute under which it derives its jurisdiction.'' 13. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after careful perusal of the record I find that admittedly the authority, on application of mind and on the basis of the material before it had refused to grant sanction to prosecute the petitioner. The order runs into three typed pages and records the reasons for arriving at a decision. The authority while concluding observed that in the light of the material no case is made out against the petitioner and the grant of sanction to prosecute would not be appropriate. 14. Apart from this has not been brought to my notice from the other side that under what provision of law the authority could review the order once passed by it. Further the impugned order Annex. 5 is also liable to be set aside on the ground of principles of natural justice and equity. It is an admitted case that no notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before reviewing the order Annx. 4. Once the authority exercised its jurisdiction in refusing to grant sanction against the petitioner vide Annx. 5 is also liable to be set aside on the ground of principles of natural justice and equity. It is an admitted case that no notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before reviewing the order Annx. 4. Once the authority exercised its jurisdiction in refusing to grant sanction against the petitioner vide Annx. 4 and subsequently in case the authority changed its mind and wanted to review the order it was incumbent to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner who should have been heard to project his viewpoint and plead that there was no occasion for review nor the authority had the jurisdiction to review the order having passed by it earlier. 15. For the reasons recorded above, the petition is allowed. The impugned order Annx. 5 is quashed. No order as to costs. *******