Judgment Manjula Chellur, C.J. These two writ appeals are taken together for disposal on merits. 2. The 1st respondent in W.A. No. 1183 of 2012 Mr. Manikuttan alias Manikandan approached the learned Single Judge challenging Ext.P14 order passed by the 2nd respondent rejecting Ext.P8 application submitted by him seeking sanction to prosecute 5th respondent who is the appellant in W.A. No.1183 of 2012. The learned Judge though opines that the order at Ext.P14 suffers from non application of judicious mind to the facts before passing an order like Ext.P14, but proceeds to opine that there has to be a sanction to prosecute 5th respondent. 3. It is not in dispute that a civil dispute is pending before Civil Court between the writ petitioner and his mother and third party purchasers which led to the present situation. According to the writ petitioner, the police officer (5th respondent) resorted to illegal methods forcing the writ petitioner to compromise the matter with his mother and third party purchasers. Therefore, he lodged a complaint seeking prosecution alleging that 5th respondent before the learned Single Judge exercised his authority notoriously without adhering to any procedure not only compelling him to compromise the civil litigation with his mother and others but also illegally seizing the autorickshaw and other properties belonging to the writ petitioner. Ext.P8 was the application seeking sanction to prosecute the 5th respondent police officer. 4. It is not in dispute that on Ext.P9 complaint lodged by the mother of the writ petitioner, Crime No.324 of 2008 came to be registered against the writ petitioner and Crime No.325 of 2008 is also registered against the writ petitioner alleging that he obstructed the Government Officials from discharging their duties as police officers. This writ petitioner under these circumstances approached the authority concerned seeking sanction to prosecute the 5th respondent. 5. The learned Judge though concludes that there is no application of mind resulting in passing mechanically a rejection order by the 2nd respondent, however, the learned Judge went wrong in saying that sanction must be given to prosecute 5th respondent as sought for in the application at Ext.P8. Government as well as 5th respondent are aggrieved by this portion of the order. 6. Government as well as 5th respondent are aggrieved by this portion of the order. 6. Once the learned Judge opines that there is mechanical disposal of the application at Ext.P8, there can only be a direction to reconsider the application and proceed in accordance with the procedure contemplated without expressing any opinion but not directing the authority to grant sanction. Under these circumstances, though we confirm the opinion of the learned Judge that there is mechanical disposal of Ext.P8 while passing Ext.P14 order, however, the direction to grant sanction is set aside. We make it clear that the authority, who has to consider Ext.P8 application, must proceed strictly in accordance with the procedure contemplated for issuance of sanction to prosecute Government Officials, if there is any violation of duties while discharging duties as Government Officials. With these observations, these two Writ Appeals are disposed of.