( 1 ) PETITIONER Varadaraja Nayak is seeking for a writ of certiorari to quash the communication dated 4. 10. 2001 and 12. 10. 2001 Annexures G and F respectively as violative of the Karnataka Sales Act, 1957 (Act for short ). Petitioner wants a direction by way of sanction under Section 33 of the Act to prosecute third respondent in terms of an application made by the petitioner. ( 2 ) PETITIONER is a dealer. He is a Managing Director of M/s Shri Shantheri Kamakshi Traders, Mangalore. Petitioner is an assessee in terms of the Sales Tax Laws. Third respondent payed an assessment officer. He rejected the return for the assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98. He passed exparte orders. Appeals were filed by the petitioner before the Joint Commissioner. Third respondent during the pendency of appeal proceedings initiated criminal proceedings in CC No. 12/2000 for violation of the provisions of Section 29 (2) (c), (d), (e) and (m) of the Act. The case was contested. Third respondent made a statement before these Magistrates. He stated that he did not obtain prior sanction in terms of Section 30 of the Act before launching prosecution. Learned trial judge acquitted the petitioner in terms of the order at Annexure-B. Thereafter, petitioner sought for prosecution of the third respondent and a reminder was sent to that effect. In the absence of any positive action, a writ petition was filed in this Court and the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent to dispose of the application filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent issued an endorsement dated 4. 10. 2001 at Annexure-G. In the said endorsement it is stated that no permission need be granted in the light of initiation of departmental proceedings and in the light of the officer having acted in good faith. Additional affidavit is filed at the time of arguments. It is stated in the additional affidavit that the third respondent has filed some more cases and they were dismissed for non-prosecution. He has also filed a complaint with the police authorities. He has further passed the information on to the Income Tax Department. He has reopened the assessment proceedings. ( 3 ) RESPONDENTS have entered appearance. Third respondent filed a detailed counter contesting the petition. He has stated that he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings and an order has been passed in this regard. He has further passed the information on to the Income Tax Department. He has reopened the assessment proceedings. ( 3 ) RESPONDENTS have entered appearance. Third respondent filed a detailed counter contesting the petition. He has stated that he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings and an order has been passed in this regard. He has also denied other averments. He has stated that large sums of money are involved and therefore the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. It is stated that an original suit was filed by the present petitioner and the said suit was dismissed by the learned judge in terms of Annexure-R2. ( 4 ) HEARD Sri Chandru, learned counsel for the petitioner. He elaborately argued to contend that his client is being unnecessarily harassed in one way or the other by the third respondent. He says that the third respondent has admitted in his cross-examination that no permission as such was obtained at the hands of the Joint Commissioner. Learned counsel says that permission is necessary in the matter of prosecution. He says that filing of prosecution without permission is nothing but harassment and that therefore third respondent is required prosecution in a competent court of law. At the time of arguments, he also says that a complaint has been given to the Lok Ayukta and the matter is still pending. ( 5 ) PER contra, Sri Manjunath, learned counsel for R3 and Sri Sanjeev, learned HCGP for R1 and R2 would say that the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner has ended now and that the suit filed by the petitioner also has stood dismissed. They say that no case is made out for prosecution. ( 6 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully perused the material on record. ( 7 ) ADMITTED facts would reveal of certain proceedings being initiated against the petitioner in terms of the Sales Tax laws. Petitioner is a dealer and the third respondent is an assessing officer. He is required to access a dealer in terms of the Act. If he commits any wrong assessment, liberty is always available to the petitioner to file such appeal as is necessary in accordance with law. As a matter of fact, petitioner had also filed an appeal in terms of the averments made in this writ petition. He is required to access a dealer in terms of the Act. If he commits any wrong assessment, liberty is always available to the petitioner to file such appeal as is necessary in accordance with law. As a matter of fact, petitioner had also filed an appeal in terms of the averments made in this writ petition. Petitioners main grievance is that the third respondent filed a criminal case in CC No. 12 of 2000 without obtaining permission. Same has been admitted by the third respondent. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the act of the third respondent is not in good faith, and that therefore, he is to be prosecuted. His representation for prosecution is seen at Annexure-C. A reading of the said petition shows that the prosecution request is essentially based on non-obtaining permission for the purpose of prosecution. It is no doubt true that he did not obtain permission. But the facts of the case would show that the petitioner is not convicted in any manner, but, on the other hand, he is given benefit of doubt on account of non-permission obtained by the third respondent in the given circumstances. He is in no way prejudiced on account of non-permission. Even the learned Judge in course of the order does not make any comment with regard to lack of good faith on the part of the third respondent It is also to be seen at this stage that the petitioner did file an original suit and the suit has ended in favour of the third respondent. Petitioner has also filed a complaint and it is pending before Lok Ayukta. It is also seen that the State has not slept over the complaint. But, on the other hand, the State has taken departmental proceedings and the proceedings have ended in terms of Annexure-R1. Taking into consideration all these matters, I am of the view that the State Government has acted upon a complaint though not by way of prosecution but by way of departmental proceedings. Prosecution is serious in nature and it cannot be done at the whims of the dealer. Dealer has to make out a case of want of good faith with regard to prosecution. Good faith has to be based on facts. Good faith can be gathered from the material on record. Prosecution is serious in nature and it cannot be done at the whims of the dealer. Dealer has to make out a case of want of good faith with regard to prosecution. Good faith has to be based on facts. Good faith can be gathered from the material on record. There is no allegation of any corruption on the part of the third respondent by the petitioner. Except making bald allegations, no specific instance/allegation is shown as to attract the attention of any authority including this court. Therefore, taking into consideration the entire material on record, at the most the said act of the third respondent may be a wrong approach but not an illegal approach as argued by the petitioner. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to accept the argument of the petitioner with regard to sanction in the given circumstances. Any sanction in such case would demoralize the officers who are entrusted with the revenue collection in terms of the sales tax laws. So long as an action is not tainted with any mala fide intention or for any other unlawful considerations, prosecution plea at the instance of the dealer has to be rejected. At the same time, I must notice that justice has been done to the petitioner by way of subjecting the third respondent to departmental proceedings. I must also notice at this stage a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of ZUNJARRAO BHIKAI NAGARKAR v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, AIR 1999 SC 2881 . That is a case in which Court was considering with regard to initiation of the proceedings against an official of the Central Excise Department. The apex Court at para 40 notices negligence. Court holds as under:40. When we talk of negligence in a quasi judicial adjudication, it is not negligence perceived as carelessness inadvertence or omission but as culpable negligence. A mere error of judgment cannot partake the character of misconduct. In fact, the Supreme Court in the very para notices as under: a wrong interpretation of law cannot be a ground for misconduct. Of course it is a different matter altogether if it is deliberate and actuated by mala fides. In para 43, again the Court notices as under:43. If, every error of law were to constitute a charge of misconduct, it would impinge upon the independent functioning of quasi judicial officers like the appellant. Of course it is a different matter altogether if it is deliberate and actuated by mala fides. In para 43, again the Court notices as under:43. If, every error of law were to constitute a charge of misconduct, it would impinge upon the independent functioning of quasi judicial officers like the appellant. Since in sum and substance misconduct is sought to be inferred by the appellant having committed an error of law, the charge sheet on the face of it does not proceed on any legal premise rendering it liable to be quashed. In other words, to maintain any charge sheet against a quasi judicial authority something more has to be alleged than a mere mistake of law, e. g. , in the nature of some extraneous consideration influencing the quasi judicial order. Since nothing of the sort is alleged herein the impugned charge sheet is rendered illegal. The charge sheet, if sustained, will thus impinge upon the confidence and independent functioning of a quasi-judicial authority. The entire system of administrative adjudication whereunder quasi judicial powers are conferred on administrative authorities, would fall into disrepute if officers performing such functions are inhibited in performing their functions without fear or favour because of the constant threat of disciplinary proceedings i must also notice another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. K. DHAWAN, AIR 1993 SC 1478 . That is also a case with regard to disciplinary action. The Court rules as under: the Government is not precluded from taking the disciplinary action for violation of the Conduct rules even with regard to exercise of quasi-judicial powers. Thus, the disciplinary action can be taken in the following cases: i) where the officer had acted in a manner as would reflect on his reputation for integrity or good faith or devotion to duty; ii) if there is prima facie material to show recklessness or misconduct in the discharge of his duty; iii) If he has acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a government servant; iv) If he had acted negligently or that he omitted the prescribed conditions which are essential for the e v) If he had acted in order to unduly favour a party; vi) If he had been actuated by corrupt motive however, small the bribe may be. A reading of the entire ruling of the Supreme Court would show that unless there is motive behind an act while discharging administrative functions, no disciplinary action can be initiated. ( 8 ) THOUGH the present case is for prosecution, taking inspiration from these two judgments of Supreme Court, I can hold that in the absence of any mala fides of any corrupt motive established to the satisfaction of the court or the authority, no prosecution can be granted, and any prosecution granted in such cases would result in the officers action in fear or favour because of the constant threat of some adverse proceedings. ( 9 ) IN the circumstances, I do not find any justifiable grounds to interfere notwithstanding serious arguments advanced by the petitioner. No grounds. Petition stand rejected. --- *** --- .