1. Petitioner, when he was posted as Resident Manager J&K SIDCO New Delhi, it was alleged that he fraudulently and dishonestly withdrew excess House Rent Allowance (HRA) in respect of his self owned accommodation situated at Delhi. It was further alleged that petitioner purchased Flat No. 40/220 on 3rd floor CR Park, New Delhi on 11.04.2001 and only after eight days i.e on 19.04.2001 entered into an 'Agreement to Sell' with his brother-in-law Mr. Mohammad Iqbal Naqash. This Flat was subsequently leased out by Mr. Mohammad Iqbal Naqash to SIDCO vide lease deed dated 20.4.2001. It is this Flat which was used by the petitioner as his official accommodation. It was also alleged that the agreement to sell was executed in pursuance of well thought out conspiracy by the petitioner with his brother-in-law to draw excess house rent, which caused loss to the state exchequer. It was further alleged that due to fraudulent and illegal action of the petitioner and mis-use of his official position, the petitioner drew House Rent Allowance in excess, which was against the rules. On these allegations case FIR No. 11/2007 u/s 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 read with section 120-B RPC was registered in P/S Vigilance Organization Jammu against the petitioner and his brother-in-law. 2. The investigation was conducted and allegations made against the petitioner and his brother-in-law were prima facia found to be correct. After conclusion of investigation offences u/s 420 and 471 were also added to charge against the petitioner. The matter were referred to Competent Authority for grant of sanction. Competent Authority granted the sanction. 3. The petitioner filed an Appeal against the order of sanction which paved way for taking of decision by the Board of Directors, (BOD) of J&K State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (SIDCO) where under the two member Committee was constituted to look into the matter, who made recommendations favouring the petitioner. The matter was referred to the Competent Authority for taking final decision. Before any decision could be taken by the Competent Authority, the State Vigilance Organization send communication to the petitioner to make himself available at the Police station vigilance Organization, Jammu, which prompted the petitioner to file this petition wherein he has challenged the order of Sanction, fax message and other communication. 4. Before any decision could be taken by the Competent Authority, the State Vigilance Organization send communication to the petitioner to make himself available at the Police station vigilance Organization, Jammu, which prompted the petitioner to file this petition wherein he has challenged the order of Sanction, fax message and other communication. 4. The Court on 14th October, 2009 while issuing notice in the writ petition and in the CMP directed for listing of the case on 19th October, 2009 and it was further provided that subject to objections, no action shall be taken by the respondents in pursuance to the impugned notices. 5. The respondents filed objections/reply affidavit. 6. Mr. Qayoom, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the documents, which the petitioner had enclosed with his reply to questionnaire, sent to him by the Investigating Agency, were not considered by the Investigating Agency and in absence of such documents, sanction could have not been granted for prosecuting the petitioner. Learned counsel also submitted that after filing of Appeal by the petitioner, the Competent Authority itself took decision to constitute a two member Committee to look into the claim of the petitioner and to make its recommendations. Learned counsel submitted that the recommendations have been made and Competent Authority/BOD has to consider the same and take decision, so the communications could not have been sent by Vigilance Organization to petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that the order of sanction issued by Competent Authority in the facts and circumstance of this case cannot become basis for launching prosecution against the petitioner until such time decision is taken by the Competent Authority/BOD on the recommendations of two member Committee. Learned counsel also referred to application filed by the Vigilance Organization seeking vacation of the stay order and submitted that in the said application it is pleaded that the Competent Authority has considered the two-member Committee report and has not accepted the recommendations. Learned counsel submitted that no such order has been placed on the record alongwith the application. Learned counsel submitted that had the order been placed on record, the petitioner would have withdrawn the writ petition. Learned counsel accordingly prayed for allowing the writ petition. 7. M/s S. A. Vakil, learned AAG and N. H. Shah, learned Dy. AG submitted that petitioner has no right of being heard by the competent Authority before grant of sanction for his prosecution. Learned counsel accordingly prayed for allowing the writ petition. 7. M/s S. A. Vakil, learned AAG and N. H. Shah, learned Dy. AG submitted that petitioner has no right of being heard by the competent Authority before grant of sanction for his prosecution. Learned counsel also submitted that the documents, which are produced by the petitioner, cannot be considered either by Investigating Agency or by Sanctioning Authority. Learned counsel in support of their contention referred to and relied upon the judgements of Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in AIR (2012) 3 SCC 64 , (2008) 14 SCC 13, (2012) 3 SCC 64 and (1996) II SCC 439 and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. The competent Authority which is empowered in law to grant or refuse the sanction for prosecution is neither judicial nor quasi judicial Authority, but discharges its duty as an administrative authority. The accused person has no right in law to file any representation before the sanctioning Authority or place documents before it. The sanctioning Authority is not under obligation in law to grant opportunity of hearing to the accused person before it considers material for grant or otherwise of sanction for prosecution. The competent Authority, while considering the question to grant or refuse the sanction, has to advert itself to the report and material which is brought before it by the Investigating Agency. 9. Once the competent Authority issues sanction for prosecution of accused interms of section 6 of Prevention of Corruption Act, Svt. 2006 thereafter, it cease to have any control over the matter. There is no provision in J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, Svt. 2006 which authorizes the sanctioning Authority either to entertain the Appeal or the representation for reviewing its decision of grant of sanction. The Appeal filed by the petitioner which was taken cognizance of and two-member committee constituted is in-consequential in law. In view of the legal position obtaining in this case all the actions and orders passed by the competent Authority after issuing of sanction to prosecute the petitioner are without authority of law and void ab nitio. 10. The plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that until such time the Appeal of the petitioner would be brought to its logical conclusion, the Vigilance Organization cannot ask him to report in their police station for the above stated reasons cannot be accepted. 10. The plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that until such time the Appeal of the petitioner would be brought to its logical conclusion, the Vigilance Organization cannot ask him to report in their police station for the above stated reasons cannot be accepted. As already stated the filing of Appeal/representation and decision taken thereon by the Authorities are not countenanced in law. It is no longer res Integra that accused person cannot ask the Investigating Agency to rely upon the document which he may produce before them or seek opportunity of hearing before the sanctioning Authority. The judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to by learned counsel for the respondents as also reported in (1996) 3 SCC 439, covers the facts of this case. No opinion of any authority will bind the sanctioning authority. 11. The entire writ petition is based on post sanctional developments, which developments are inconsequential in law. The sanctioning Authority cannot review its order and cannot entertain Appeal/representation/material on behalf of the accused person. The order granting sanction for prosecution of the petitioner cannot be review/recalled by the sanctioning Authority. The veracity and genuineness of the documents, on which reliance is placed by petitioner, as also their admissibility would be tested during the trial of the case. The petitioner would be at liberty to press into service any material available with him during the trial of the case. 12. The investigating officer is not bound to consider the documents, which may be produced by accused during the investigation of case. The investigating officer has to proceed with the investigation of the case in accordance with provisions of Criminal Procedure Code and Prevention of Corruption Act. 13. For the above stated reasons this petition being meritless is dismissed alongwith connected CMP(s). 14. Interim direction shall stand vacated.