M. Ramakrishna, C.J.— By virtue of the order made by this Court on 18th December, 1997, this matter has been set down for consideration today. 2. It is pertinent to mention here that in the course of order made by the Division Bench on 18th December, 1997, the Court had to consider two applications in Misc. Case No. 1044 of 1997 seeking a direction directing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for production of certain documents before this Court referred to in the course of the order. Considering that application, we issued directions, directing the CBI to submit the final progress report of investigation by 6th January, 1988, besides certain other directions given to the CBI as to the differences of reports one of the Director General of CBI and the other by other authorities. We pointed out that, with a view to enable this Court to scrutinise that aspect of the matter in relation to the alleged differences of opinion, a perusal of the original records might be necessary. That is how the Court directed to produce those records. 3. As on today, Mr. KN Bhat, learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for the CBI has submitted the final progress report in two copies submitting that, since the CBI has taken action to submit the final progress report, the matter may be ordered to be closed disposing of this public interest litigation petition on the LOC Scam. 4. In Misc Case No. 1070 of 1997, another application presented by the applicant, Mr. Prafulla Kumar Mahanta, wanted an order to implead him as a necessary party in the proceedings in Civil Rule No.6083 of 1996. It is seen that by order made by this Court on 29th December, 1997, his application in Misc Case No. 1070 of 1997 was allowed to come on record. However, the other prayer made by the applicant seeking for staying further proceedings arising out of the final report submitted by the CBI was concerned; this Court declined to pass an order staying further proceedings in the matter. 5. Considering the final report submitted by the CBI through the Additional Solicitor General of India, Shri R. Gogoi, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, however, argued at length as to the feasibility of accepting the report and to close the case. 5. Considering the final report submitted by the CBI through the Additional Solicitor General of India, Shri R. Gogoi, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, however, argued at length as to the feasibility of accepting the report and to close the case. He has argued seeking to point out that, it is not a fit case where the applicant, Mr. Prafulla Kumar Mahanta was sought to be involved as one of the accused persons, besides action to be taken by the CBI seeking his prosecution before the competent authority. However, at the conclusion of the argument he has submitted that he may be permitted to withdraw the application with liberty reserved to him to seek for the relief in accordance with the law. His submission is recorded. 6. In view of the submission made by Mr. Gogoi, the application presented by him seeking to reconsider the involvement of the applicant as not based upon acceptable evidence is concerned, since he has requested this Court not to consider this aspect and to record appropriate findings on certain issues arising out of the arguments advanced by him. we pass the following order : The application presented by the applicant stands rejected as not pressed with liberty reserved to him to seek for appropriate relief, if he is so advised, in the appropriate Court. In so far as the order passed by the Division Bench on 29th December, 1997 allowing the application of the applicant to come on record as necessary party is concerned, it is now clarified that in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Criminal) Nos.340-343 of 1993 (Veneet Narain & others vs. Union of India & another), dated 18th December, 1997, it is unnecessary for such an application to be considered for the purpose of impleadment. No purpose will be served in allowing this application. Therefore, that order made by the Division Bench of 29th December, 1997 now stands clarified. 7. In 'view of the foregoing, this public interest litigation petition in Civil Rule No.6083 of 1996 dealing with the LOC Scam in RC 3(A)/94/ACU-II (Demow case) relating to the Sibsagar Treasury for according sanction of the prosecution of Mr. Prafulla Kumar Mahanta etc is concerned, in the light of the final progress report now submitted by the CBI, this matter stands closed. 8. Ordered accordingly. 9. Prafulla Kumar Mahanta etc is concerned, in the light of the final progress report now submitted by the CBI, this matter stands closed. 8. Ordered accordingly. 9. The Registry of this Court is directed to keep the final progress report submitted by the CBI through Shri NK Bhat, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, in sealed cover until further orders. D. N. Chowdhury, J.--10. I am fully in agreement with the Hon'ble the Chief Justice that presently our exercise is over and the proceeding should be drawn to a close. Whether the investigation was made justly, fairly and lawfully can be canvassed before the appropriate forum as and when the occasion arises. In a proceeding for Mandamus this Court cannot convert itself to that of a Court of appeal. 11.1 have also given anxious consideration on the submission of Mr. R. Gogoi, the learned counsel for the applicant about the inadequacy and insufficiency of materials for the prosecution of the applicant. Presently the investigating agency submitted the papers before the sanctioning authority seeking sanction to prosecute. The case of the applicant is also awaiting sanction before the Governor. Whether the facts of the case as well as the materials and evidence collected during the investigation give rise to genuine satisfaction for sanctioning prosecution rest on the sanctioning authority. The applicant is a Chief Minister of a State; the sanctioning authority is also a Constitutional authority viz the Governor of the State. We deliberately refrain from entering into that area because the mind of the sanctioning authority should not be under any constraint from any quarter. According of sanction, after all, is not an empty protocol "but a solemn and sacrosanct act which removes the umbrella of protection ... against frivolous prosecution and the aforesaid requirements must therefore, be strictly complied with before any prosecution could be launched ..." (Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed vs. State of AP reported in AIR 1979 SC 677 . 12. The sole aim of section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 as well as section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code is to avoid any uncalled for prosecution of a public servant and to save such person from unnecessary harassment from the disgruntled quarter. 13. 12. The sole aim of section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 as well as section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code is to avoid any uncalled for prosecution of a public servant and to save such person from unnecessary harassment from the disgruntled quarter. 13. The Parliament conferred the power of according sanction upon the authority competent to remove the public servant from the office based obviously for the reason that the said authority alone would be able to judge on the basis of facts and evidence placed before him or her whether a serious offence is committed or the prosecution is either frivolous or speculative. The above authority alone is competent to judge whether on the facts alleged, there has been an abuse or misuse of office held by the public servant. As held by the Supreme Court in RS Nayak vs. AR Antulay reported in (1984) 2 SCC 183 : "That authority would be in a position to know what was the power conferred on the office which the public servant holds, how that power could be abused for corrupt motive and whether prima facie it has been so done. That competent authority alone would know the nature and functions discharged by the public servant holding the office and whether the same has been abused or misused. It is the vertical hierarchy between the authority competent to remove the public servant from the office and the nature of the office held by the public servant against whom sanction is sought which would indicate a hierarchy and which would therefore, permit inference of knowledge about the functions and duties of the office and its misuse or abuse by the public servant. That is why the Legislature clearly provided that authority alone would be competent to grant sanction which is entitled to remove the public servant against whom sanction is sought from the office." 14. In the case of the applicant, as mentioned earlier the sanctioning authority is holding the high office of Governor of a State. It can legitimately be presumed that the sanctioning authority will act fairly and objectively and will act only when it is satisfied that charges against the person or persons are required to be tried by a Court of law. 15. It can legitimately be presumed that the sanctioning authority will act fairly and objectively and will act only when it is satisfied that charges against the person or persons are required to be tried by a Court of law. 15. The present exercise is limited to secure the performance of the duty by the investigating agency and under no circumstances same can be outstretched to the assessment of the quality of the accusation secured by the CBI. It will be in the domain of the competent Court to assess the merits of the arraignment on presentation of the charge sheet according to the procedure prescribed by the law of the land. "Let the work not delay, time and the arm not waste."