JUDGMENT By the Court.—This Court by its final order dated 21.2.2006 directed consideration of the representation of the accused before granting or refusing sanction for prosecution. 2. The representation has been considered by a detailed order and rejected on 23.7.2007. A copy of the order rejecting the objections has been enclosed as Annexure 4 to this writ petition. That order was challenged by the petitioner in a Writ Petition No. 38286 of 2007, which is said to be still pending and in which a counter-affidavit has been called but allegedly not filed. No interim order appears to have been passed in that writ petition because of which now by the impugned order dated 4.10.2007 sanction has been accorded for prosecution of the petitioner. 3. The petitioner is challenging this sanction order dated 4.10.2007. 4. Whether the representation was rightly rejected or wrongly rejected is a question directly in issue in the writ petition which is still pending as quoted above and, therefore, it would not be legally permissible for this Court to adjudicate upon that issue in this subsequently filed writ petition. Apart from that question of whether the rejection of the objection of the petitioner to the grant of sanction was correct or not correct, there appears to be little else to say against the actual sanction order dated 4.10.2007. 5. Thus, in effect, the order dated 4.10.2007 by which the sanction has been accorded is basically being challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner’s objections and representation has been wrongly rejected. 6. In view of this situation, we are of the opinion that this fresh writ petition is not liable to be entertained and the proper and correct remedy of the petitioner would be to move an amendment application, in the pending writ petition, for challenging the subsequent and consequential order dated 4.10.2007. 7. Leaving that remedy open to the petitioner, we decline to interfere in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. Petition Dismissed. ————