Judgment Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. 1. The petitioner, a Patwari, is aggrieved by the order dated July 5, 2002 passed by the District Collector, Gurdaspur. By this order the petitioners Appointing Authority has granted sanction for his prosecution in the case under Sections 7, 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner alleges that after the trap had been laid and the vigilance officers had conducted the raid, a preliminary inquiry had been held. After the inquiry, the Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur, had passed an order dated June 4, 2001 holding that it was not "a fit case for granting approval for prosecution ............". Thus, the successors in office could not have reviewed the order and granted sanction especially when nothing new had come on the record. On these premises, the petitioner prays that the order dated July 5, 2002, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-9 with the writ petition, be quashed. 2. Mr. Sanjay Majithia, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur, had found that "the trap was motivated". Thus, sanction for prosecution was declined. There is nothing on record to show that the finding recorded by the Deputy Commissioner was wrong. Thus, the District Collector had no jurisdiction to review the order and to grant sanction. 3. It is the admitted position that a raid was conducted and Rs. 300/- were allegedly recovered from the petitioner on June 19, 2000. A copy of the First Information Report is produced as Annexure P-3 with the writ petition. According to this report, the petitioner had demanded Rs. 500/- in cash and a bottle of whisky for supplying a copy of the Jamabandi. Rs. 300/- were given in cash along with the bottle of whisky. The raid was organised by the Vigilance Bureau, Gurdaspur. An officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police had conducted the raid. Currency notes of Rs. 100/- each were recovered from the petitioner. Even the bottle of whiskey had been recovered from his possession. The numbers of the currency notes recovered from the petitioners custody were also noted down. There is not even a suggestion that the officers of the Vigilance Bureau had any enmity or reason to falsely implicate the petitioner. Nothing has been pointed out from the record to even prima-facie show that the trap was motivated. The numbers of the currency notes recovered from the petitioners custody were also noted down. There is not even a suggestion that the officers of the Vigilance Bureau had any enmity or reason to falsely implicate the petitioner. Nothing has been pointed out from the record to even prima-facie show that the trap was motivated. In any event, these are matters which shall be seen at the time of the trial. Still further, it is apparent that the raid has put the petitioner under a cloud. The sanction and the resultant trial would either remove the cloud or the petitioner from the scene. There is no reason to scuttle the sanction and to save the petitioner. 4. Mr. Majithia submits that the authority had no jurisdiction to review the order passed by his predecessor. 5. A perusal of the order shows that the District Collector has acted under Section 19 of the Act. Grant of sanction is basically an administrative act. The statute places no restriction on the jurisdiction of the authority to reconsider the matter. 6. Mr. Majithia submits that the petitioner had made a report against the complainant on June 15, 2000. According to this report the complainant had encroached upon the Panchayat land. Thus, the complainant had a motive to falsely implicate the petitioner. 7. At this stage, it is not possible to record a firm finding either way. These are matters which shall be considered by the Court at the appropriate time. Expression of opinion by this Court might prejudice either side. It would not be fair to do so. 8. Mr. Majithia has also pointed out that an inquiry had been conducted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. It was found that the claim of Vijay Kumar, the complainant, was false. Thus, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner declining to grant sanction was just and fair. 9. A copy of the inquiry report submitted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate is on record as Annexure P-8. We have perused it. It appears to have been submitted to the Deputy Commissioner vide Memorandum dated July 30, 2001. This report could not have formed the basis of the order dated June 4, 2001 by which the Deputy Commissioner had refused sanction. 10. Mr. Majithia submits that another inquiry was conducted by the Assistant Commissioner (General) and the report was submitted on September 11, 2000. 11. This report could not have formed the basis of the order dated June 4, 2001 by which the Deputy Commissioner had refused sanction. 10. Mr. Majithia submits that another inquiry was conducted by the Assistant Commissioner (General) and the report was submitted on September 11, 2000. 11. We have no reason to doubt that the competent authority had all this material before it when it passed the impugned order. In a nutshell, the position is that sanction for prosecution has been granted. This sanction is referable to the provisions of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It has been granted by the competent authority. No provision of law is shown to have been violated. There is no equity in favour of the petitioner. In this situation, no ground for interference in the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 is made out. No other point has been raised. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.