Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1344 (RAJ)

Bhawana v. State of Rajasthan

2018-05-22

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2018
JUDGMENT Sandeep Mehta, J. - Through this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Smt. Bhavna has approached this Court for assailing the order (Annexure-5) dated 08.08.2016 issued by the State Government under Section 197 Cr.P.C., 1973 granting sanction for prosecution of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 420, 166, 167 and 197 IPC. 2. Whilst, the petitioner has principally assailed the impugned sanction order on the ground that the same was passed with total non-application of mind and that the relevant evidence collected by the investigating officer was not even barely considered before issuing such sanction, the respondents, by filing a detailed reply have justified the sanction order claiming that the petitioner has concealed material facts while filing the writ petition. The State Government has issued a charge-sheet to the petitioner under Section 38 of the Panchayati Raj Act in relation to the very same allegations which form the crux of the sanction order. This fact was concealed by the petitioner while filing the writ petition. It is further pointed out in the reply that the sanction authority, duly applied its mind to the entirety of facts before it before passing the impugned sanction order. 3. Shri Mahaveer Vishnoi learned counsel representing the petitioner, relied upon the Hon'ble Surpeme Court's decision in the case of Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 1997 SC 3400 and this Court's judgment dated 15.04.2015 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1138/2012 (Ganga Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) and vehemently urged that the order granting sanction is verbatim the same as the recommendation forwarded by the proposing officer to the sanctioning authority and hence, manifestly, the sanction order suffers from the vice of non-application of mind to material facts and thus, the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. 4. Per contra, Shri Manish Patel, learned AGC and Shri Anil Kumar Bissa, learned AGC representing the Panchayati Raj Department and Department of Home Affairs respectively, vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by Shri Vishnoi and urged that the impugned sanction order discloses due application of mind to the relevant facts as presented before the sanctioning authority. The petitioner was prima facie found responsible for gross criminal misconduct by misusing her position as the Sapranch, Gram Panchayat Sawantsar. The petitioner was prima facie found responsible for gross criminal misconduct by misusing her position as the Sapranch, Gram Panchayat Sawantsar. Not only this, the petitioner has concealed the fact of the inquiry initiated against her for the very same allegations. On these grounds, they craved dismissal of the writ petition. 5. I have heard and considered the arguments advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record. Ex-facie, upon a careful and comparative analysis of the proposal for grant of sanction (Annexure-4) and the sanction order (Annexure-5) dated 08.08.2016, this Court is of the firm opinion that the challenge given to the sanction order on the pretext that the same is verbatim the same as the recommendation for sanction, is totally misconceived. The sanction order, clearly discloses independent and objective consideration of the material allegations available on record so as to proceed against the petitioner. It may be stated here that the basic facts relevant and essential for issuing the sanction order could not have been different from what were set out in the recommendation order. Thus, similarity of these basic facts is bound to reflect in the proposal and the sanction order. 6. In this background, this Court is least convinced by the argument of Shri Mahaveer Vishnoi, learned counsel representing the petitioner that the sanction order was passed in a mechanical fashion and suffers from non-application of mind. I have carefully perused the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan (supra) as well as this Court's judgment in the case of Ganga Ram (Supra) relied upon by Shri Vishnoi (supra) and find that the factual gamut existing in these two cases is entirely distinguishable from the present case. In the case of Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan, sanction was issued in compliance of the mandate issued by the High Court and same was considered to be mechanical. In the case of Ganga Ram, this Court found that the language of draft sanction and the prosecution sanction was verbatim the same. In the present case, the situation is entirely different as the sanction order was clearly passed after effective independent consideration of the material facts constituting the offences attributed to the petitioner. 7. In the case of Ganga Ram, this Court found that the language of draft sanction and the prosecution sanction was verbatim the same. In the present case, the situation is entirely different as the sanction order was clearly passed after effective independent consideration of the material facts constituting the offences attributed to the petitioner. 7. Hence, I am not inclined to exercise this Court's extraordinary writ jurisdiction so as to quash the impugned sanction order (Annexure-5) dated 08.08.2016 whereby, the State Government granted permission to prosecute the petitioner for the offences under Sections 420, 166, 167 and 197 IPC. 8. As a result of the above discussion, the instant writ petition as well as stay application fail and are hereby rejected. No order as to cost.