SANJAY KISHAN KAUL ( 1 ) THE authority to exercise the power of review in respect of sanction of prosecution under section 19 (1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short the Act) has given rise to the present petition. ( 2 ) THE petitioner joined respondent No. 1, Delhi Energy Development Agency in February, 1981 and was promoted as an Administrative Officer in 1991. On 18. 2. 96 an FIR was registered against Sh. C. S. Khairwal, the then Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Surface transport. The petitioner was also arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation and since she remained in custody for more than 48 hours the petitioner was placed under suspension in accordance with CCS (CCA) Rules. The petitioner challenged the action against her and was reinstated by an order dated 25. 7. 97 in CW 1818/97. ( 3 ) ON 26. 2. 98 an FIR was filed against the petitioner for disproportionate assets. A request was made for sanction of prosecution under section 19 (1) (c) of the said Act but the same was declined by the competent authority vide orders dated 29. 11. 99 and 15. 3. 2000. Request was again made by the CBI for reconsideration of the matter but the same was declined vide order dated 5. 2. 2001 on the ground that the competent authority had no power to review its decision. The CBI continued to make requests by subsequent letters dated 21. 6. 2001, 17. 7. 2001 and 24. 9. 2001. Finally the sanction was granted by the order dated 31. 10. 2001. ( 4 ) THE petitioner aggrieved by the said order of sanction dated 31. 10. 2001 has filed the present petition for quashing the said decision. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contends that the competent authority once having applied its mind to the facts of the case and having declined to sanction prosecution was vested with no jurisdiction to review its earlier decision. It is contended that the request of CBI was repeatedly declined including by Sh. Rahul Khullar, who subsequently took the impugned decision to review the order ( 6 ) MR. It is contended that the request of CBI was repeatedly declined including by Sh. Rahul Khullar, who subsequently took the impugned decision to review the order ( 6 ) MR. K. C. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that unless the power of review is specifically conferred no review can be made and thus the subsequent impugned decision is without jurisdiction and null and void It has also been contended that the decision to review itself was arbitrary, illegal, unfair and unjustified. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in dr. (Smt-) Kuntesh Gupta Vs Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Sitapur 1987 (4) SCC 525 The Supreme Court was concerned with the exercise of powers by the Vice chancellor under the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 and held that a quasi- judicial authority cannot review its own order unless power of review is expressly conferred on it by the statute under which it derives its jurisdiction Since the provisions of the UP Act or the Statutes of the Universities do not confer any power of review with Vice Chancellor it was held that the exercise of the power to review by the VC was without Jurisdiction and thus a nullty. ( 8 ) MR. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner, also relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this court in Dhanpatmal Virmani Senior Secondary School and another vs. Shri j. D. Kapoor and others in LPA 498/98 decided on 1922001. The Division Bench was concerned with the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and the rules framed thereunder. The director of Education declined to grant approval for removal of an employee under rule 120 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 On being asked to reconsider/review its decision the Director of Education reviewed the order of his predecessor. The Single Judge of this court held that the power of review must be provided in the Statute and in the absence of the same quashed the decision taken by the Director of Education while reviewing its earlier order The management of the School contended before the Division Bench that the order of the Director of Education was administrative in nature and thus could be reviewed without there being a specific provision for review. The Division Bench considered the exercise of power and held that it was well established legal position that a quasi-judicial authority cannot review its own order without there being specific power to do so It was held that a review is a creation of the statute and unless there is a provision in the statute the order cannot be reviewed. ( 9 ) LEARNED Single Judge of this court had also the occasion to consider this issue in jagdish Prasad Sharma vs. The State 1996 JCC 483 under the said Act The case also dealt with a situation where the sanctioning authority on the basis of the material on record had declined the sanction but subsequently decided to reappraise the decision without there being any fresh material The charges in the said case were however, quashed on the account of delay and for reason of absence of any fresh material ( 10 ) THE Supreme Court in the case of Gopikant Choudhary Vs State of Bihar and others (2000) 9 SCC 53 was concerned with the prosecution of a public servant under section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and it was held that in the absence of any fresh material there could not be any reconsideration of the earlier order refusing the sanction of prosecution by the appropriate authority ( 11 ) THE only contention advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondents having found material and lacunae in its earlier order passed a speakting stating as to how it found that the petitioner was in possession of assets disproportionate to her income. The lacuna is supposed to have been found out in communications sent by the cbi. ( 12 ) A perusal of the consideration of the case of the petitioner by the competent authority shows that the earlier decision was a duly considered decision and the prosecution was declined after due consideration since the competent authority was of the view that there was no case of assets disproportionate to income in case of the petitioner. Details of the assets and income of the petitioner were taken into consideration while declining the prosecution. This is apparent from the perusal of the order. The initial order was passed on 29. 11. 99 and the request for reconsideration was rejected on 15. 3. 2000. Details of the assets and income of the petitioner were taken into consideration while declining the prosecution. This is apparent from the perusal of the order. The initial order was passed on 29. 11. 99 and the request for reconsideration was rejected on 15. 3. 2000. It may be relevant to reproduce the operative portion of the order dated 15. 3. 2000. "and Whereas, I, S. Malaichamy, Chairman, DEDA being authority competent to remove Ms. Abha Tyagi from her office, after fully and carefully examining the material placed before me in regard to the said allegation and relevant documents pertaining to the case and after independently applying my mind, consider that the request of the CBI for accord of prosecution sanctionagainst Ms. Abha Tyagi needs to be rejected since the investigating agency has not taken on record the loan of rs. 4. 5 lakhs taken by Ms. Abha tyagi from her father for which she had informed the deptt. in time and also income of Rs. 58,5000. 00 and Rs. 28,500. 00 from Chit Fund though outgo of Rs. 59,875. 00 towards the contribution of chit fund has been accepted by the investigating agency. Had these amounts been considered by the investigating agency in the total income of the officer, the entire income exceeds the total assets shown against the Officer by the CBI thus the contention of the CBI does not appear to be correct. " ( 13 ) A separate note was also made by the competent authority again on the said date which is as under:- "i have once again gone through the records placed before me and found that CBI has not taken into account the amount of Rs. 4. 50 lakh received by the officer from her father as loan for which due intimation was given to the department which is on record. Though the deposit of Rs. 59,875. 00 to the Chit fund accepted by CBI, the earning from the deposit has not been accepted by them for unknown reasons. So the question of disproportionate assets would not arise if the above amount is included in the income of the Officer. The undersigned being the competent authority reiterate my earlier views expressed at page 44/n and decline the request of CBI for prosecution sanction or initiation of rda against the officer as it would only lead to undue harassment to the officer. The undersigned being the competent authority reiterate my earlier views expressed at page 44/n and decline the request of CBI for prosecution sanction or initiation of rda against the officer as it would only lead to undue harassment to the officer. " ( 14 ) THE matter was once again reconsidered by the competent authority on 18. 12. 2000 and taking note of the judgment of Gujarat High Court in K. V. Joseph Vs. State of Gujarat 1997 Cri. L. J 2896 the competent authority held that once the sanction is duly accorded by competent authority under section 19 there could be no question of reconsideration or withdrawal of the same. It was thus said that the position would remain the same even where the sanction was declined. ( 15 ) IN the impugned order where the earlier decision has been reviewed it has been noted that repeated requests have been received from CBI urging reconsideration of the facts of the case. The competent authority stated that view taken earlier on the basis of the Gujarat high Court judgment would not be applicable in the instant case since prosecution had not been permitted. It has further been stated that once CBI pointed out certain lacunae the competent authority should have passed speaking order and not relied on its previous order. Thereafter the competent authority has proceeded to reappraise the same material to come to the conclusion that there would be a case for disproportionate assets of Rs. 1. 57 lacs. ( 16 ) TWO aspects clearly emerge from the aforesaid facts. First that there was no fresh material on record for reviewing its earlier decision other than the communications by the cbi. This is apparent from the order dated 31. 10. 2001. It appears from the sequence of facts that it is only the repeated demands and requests of the CBI which has resulted in passing of the impugned order. In view of there being no fresh material for review, the mere reappraisal of certain figures to come to the conclusion that there were disproportionate assets to the extent of Rs. 1. 57 lacs cannot be sustained. This in terms of the decisions in Jagdish prasad s case (supra) and Gopikant Choudhary s case (supra ). In view of there being no fresh material for review, the mere reappraisal of certain figures to come to the conclusion that there were disproportionate assets to the extent of Rs. 1. 57 lacs cannot be sustained. This in terms of the decisions in Jagdish prasad s case (supra) and Gopikant Choudhary s case (supra ). ( 17 ) THERE is also force in submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the grant of sanction would amount to review by the competent authority of its earlier orders. In fact since this would amount to a review earlier the competent authorities had declined exercise the power since they were of the opinion that there is no authority to do so. This aspect has been considered in the impugned order but the view taken is that the judgment would be relevant where prosecution was granted and thereafter it was sought to be reviewed. This reasoning is unsustainable, The principle of law would be the same whether the decision was to grant or not to grant the prosecution and the same was sought to be changed and reviewed. ( 18 ) THE Supreme Court has held in Dr. (Smt) Kuntesh Gupta s case (supra) that power of review cannot be exercised unless it is specifically conferred. This view has been followed by the Division Bench of this court in Dhanpatmal Virmani Senior Secondary School s case (supra ). The competent authority undoubtedly derives its powers as granted in terms of the said Act. No such power of review has been conferred under the said Act. In view of the competent authority having exercised its power, in the absence of a power of review, the authority could not have reviewed its earlier decision. ( 19 ) IN the end it must be stated that the present case is peculiar to the extent that for an amount of alleged disproportionate assets of Rs. 1. 57 lacs the CBI has been making repeated requests and the competent authorities have declined the same time and again till the impugned order was passed. The action taken vide the impugned order is wholly unsustainable in law in the absence of any power of review as also in view of the fact that no fresh material was in any case placed on record for reconsideration other than the repeated requests of CBI. The action taken vide the impugned order is wholly unsustainable in law in the absence of any power of review as also in view of the fact that no fresh material was in any case placed on record for reconsideration other than the repeated requests of CBI. ( 20 ) A writ of certiorari is thus issued quashing the impugned decision dated 31. 10. 2001 passed by respondent No. 1 granting sanction for prosecution against the petitioner. The petitioner shall also be entitled to costs of Rs. 5,000. 00.