ORDER : A.N. Venugopal Gowda, J. 1. The petitioners are the President and Secretary of Sri Siddarameshwara Vidya Samsthe, registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. The Society has constructed a Community Hall, which is permitted to be used for the purpose of holding conferences and marriages. The 3rd respondent, being the Labour Inspector of Hosadurga Circle, Chitradurga District, having inspected the said Community Hall on 21-6-2014 and finding violations, submitted a report to the first respondent and sought according of approval for prosecution of the petitioners. The first respondent by a communication dated 26-8-2014, vide Annexure-D, having accorded the permission, a complaint under Section200 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, vide Annexure-E was filed on 15-9-2014. The Magistrate having passed an order dated 17-9-2014 vide Annexure-F, taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 4(2), 29, 34 and 6-A of the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) read with Rules 9(1), 24(9-A), 24(9-B), 24(9-C) and 24(11) of the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Rules, 1963 (for short, 'the Rules') and registered C.C. No. 432 of 2014 and issued process to the petitioners for appearance, these petitions were filed to quash Annexures-D, E and F. Sri A.V. Gangadharappa, learned Advocate, firstly contended that the communication vide Annexure-D, insofar as it permits prosecution of the petitioners is arbitrary and illegal. He submitted that, mechanically permission having been accorded, there is arbitrariness on the part of the respondent 1. Learned Counsel contended that the according of permission for prosecution under Rule 21-A being a quasi-judicial function and there being lack of application of mind to ascertain from the material produced as to, whether there is a case for initiation of a proceeding, Annexure-D having been issued mechanically and without assigning any reasons is liable to be quashed. Secondly, there being no prima facie material placed on record along with the complaint vide Annexure-E, the order passed vide Annexure-F i.e., taking cognizance of the offences and issue of process is illegal. He submitted that lack of application of mind by the learned Magistrate being apparent from the perusal of the order as at Annexure-F, a case for quashing of it, in exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., having been made out, these petitions are liable to be allowed. 2. He submitted that lack of application of mind by the learned Magistrate being apparent from the perusal of the order as at Annexure-F, a case for quashing of it, in exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., having been made out, these petitions are liable to be allowed. 2. Learned High Court Government Pleader, on the other hand, by referring to the decision in State of Karnataka v Nanda Gopal ILR 1987 Kar. 562 (DB), contended that Annexure-D being only an approval and not sanction as required under Section 197 of Cr.P.C., or under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, no interference with Annexure-D is called for. It was submitted that inspection of Community Hall having been conducted on 21-6-2014 and the violation of statutory provisions having been noticed, a report dated 16-8-2014 was submitted to the first respondent and after the permission was accorded vide Annexure-D, complaint vide Annexure-E was filed. It was pointed out that the Magistrate having perused the complaint and finding prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 4(2), 29, 34 and 6-A of the Act read with Rules 9(1), 24(9-A), 24(9-B), 24(9-C) and 24(11) of the Rules, cognizance was taken and process was issued. Learned Counsel submitted that there being no legal infirmity in the orders passed vide Annexures-D and E, interference in exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is not called for. 3. Perused the record and considered the rival contentions. Point for consideration is, whether the Annexures-D, E and F are vitiated and liable to be quashed? 4. The 3rd respondent being the holder of the Office of the 2nd respondent, having inspected the Community Hall belonging to Sri Siddarameshwara Vidya Samsthe and noticed violation of statutory provisions by its Management and having submitted the report on 16-8-2014, to the first respondent, permission vide Annexure-D was accorded for prosecution of the petitioners, they being the President and Secretary respectively of the said Society. 5. Rule 21-A mandates that the Inspector shall obtain prior approval of the Chief Inspector before making a complaint in respect of an offence punishable under the Act, Rules or sub-rules made thereunder. 5. Rule 21-A mandates that the Inspector shall obtain prior approval of the Chief Inspector before making a complaint in respect of an offence punishable under the Act, Rules or sub-rules made thereunder. Whether the requirement under Rule 21-A amounts to approval or sanction was the subject-matter of consideration in the case of Nanda Gopal and it has been held as follows: "7.........Thus, it is clear that it is only the approval that it is required to be taken and not the sanction as it is generally required under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. or Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In Ex. P. 9, no doubt, it is stated that sanction is accorded. But, that alone, would not make it a sanction as it is only the approval that is required according to Rule 21-A of the Rules. According to the Notification No. SWL 3 LSC 75, dated 19-2-1977 which came into force with effect from 24-2-1977, the Commissioner of Labour, had authorised the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Bangalore to accord approval for prosecution under Rule 21-A of the Rules. So, the approval granted by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bangalore, as per Ex. P. 9 is in accordance with Rule 21-A of the Rules. The approval need not fulfil the requirement of the sanction as required under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. or Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Therefore, we are clearly of the view that the learned Magistrate erred in holding that Ex. P. 9 was not legal and valid". (emphasis supplied) 6. In view of the said pronouncement by the Division Bench, which is binding on this Bench, in the absence of any other decision of equal or higher quorum or that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there is no merit in the contentions urged and the submissions made by Sri A.V. Gangadharappa i.e., with regard to Annexure-D. 7. Complaint vide Annexure-E has been lodged by the competent person. It enlists the alleged violations by the accused. Whether the allegation made in Annexure-E has any merit or not is a matter to be decided by the learned Magistrate. Suffice to observe that Annexure-E is not frivolous or vexatious. Complaint vide Annexure-E has been lodged by the competent person. It enlists the alleged violations by the accused. Whether the allegation made in Annexure-E has any merit or not is a matter to be decided by the learned Magistrate. Suffice to observe that Annexure-E is not frivolous or vexatious. Order at Annexure-F shows that the learned Magistrate having perused the complaint and being satisfied that there is prima facie case has taken cognizance of the offences, registered the criminal case and has ordered for issue of process. From the order as at Annexure-F, it becomes apparent that the learned Magistrate has applied judicial mind to the complaint filed vide Annexure-E. Hence, the criticism that the order as at Annexure-F i.e., taking cognizance of the offences and issue of process is mechanical and there is no application of mind cannot be accepted, inasmuch as, the learned Magistrate having perused the complaint and finding a prima facie case, has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 4(2), 29, 34 and 6-A of the Act read with Rules 9(1), 24(9-A), 24(9-B), 24(9-C) and 24(11) of the Rules. Hence, the contentions urged with regard to Annexures-E and F, also has no merit. In the result, petitions being devoid of merit are rejected. Learned Magistrate shall decide the case with as much expedition as possible and within a period of six months from the next hearing date.