ORDER : 1. The petitioner herein calls in question legality, validity and correctness of the impugned order dated 15-5-2019 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No.1 in exercise of power conferred under Section 19(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the PC Act’) read with Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the CrPC’) granting sanction for prosecution against him for offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act and Sections 120B & 420 of the IPC. 2. Essential facts in order to adjudicate the aforesaid challenge levied by the petitioner are as under :- 3. The Chhattisgarh State Economic Crime Bureau and Anti Corruption Bureau registered an offence under Crime No.42/1996 against the petitioner and other persons for offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act and Sections 120B & 420 of the IPC and sought sanction from respondent No.1 for prosecution against the petitioner herein and other persons under Section 19(1)(b) of the PC Act and Section 197 of the CrPC in which respondent No.1 Department of Law & Legislative Affairs by memo dated 22-3-2019 sought comments from the Administrative Department i.e. the Secretary, Department of Water Resources, State of Chhattisgarh – respondent No.2 herein and reiterated by memo dated 25-4-2019, but, comments were not received from the said respondent Department upon which sanction for prosecution was granted on 15-5-2019 by the State Respondent – respondent No.1 herein. It is the case of the petitioner in the writ petition that as per the circular dated 21-4-1997 issued by the Department of General Administration of the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh, the Department of Law & Legislative Affairs shall obtain opinion of the Department concerned before granting sanction and in case of conflict between the two Departments, the matter shall be referred to the Sub-Committee of the Cabinet. It is the further case of the petitioner that in this case, the Administrative Department of the petitioner i.e. the Water Resources Department, by memo dated 16-5-2019 (Annexure P-1) has already conveyed its disagreement for grant of sanction for prosecution against the petitioner, however, sanction for prosecution has been granted by respondent No.1 – Principal Secretary, Department of Law & Legislative Affairs, whereas, the matter ought to have been placed for consideration before the Sub-Committee of the Cabinet as provided in the circular dated 21-4-1997 (page 44 of the writ petition) and in absence of that, sanction granted is vitiated and as such, the order granting sanction against the petitioner is unsustainable and bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 4. Return has been filed by the State/respondents stating inter alia that on 3-2-1988, a notification was issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms and Training, while carrying out amendment in the Madhya Pradesh Works (Allotment) Rules, and the subject of according sanction for prosecution to the Department of Law & Legislative Affairs was authorised under Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (now repealed by the Act of 1988) and Section 197 of the CrPC. It has further been pleaded that by circular dated 31-5-1996, jurisdiction to grant sanction for prosecution against the Government Servant will be directly by the Department of Law & Legislative Affairs of State and by circular dated 21-4-1997 (Annexure R-1), it has been decided that before the order granting sanction for prosecution, opinion from the Administrative Department will have to be obtained and for the same, time period of one month has been fixed and if opinion is not extended by the Administrative Department within the said period, it will be open to the Law & Legislative Affairs Department to consider and grant sanction/approval for prosecution without further waiting for opinion of the Administrative Department. Annexure R-2 – order dated 30-5-2003 passed by the then Chief Minister has been filed, by which in exercise of power conferred under the Works Allotment Rules, power to grant sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act and Section 197 of the CrPC has been conferred to the Principal Secretary/Secretary of the Department of Law & Legislative Affairs except in three cases mentioned therein including in which the Administrative Department has expressed its disagreement for prosecution of the concerned public servant. It has also been pleaded that by memo dated 22-3-2019, opinion of respondent No.2 – Administrative Department was asked for, but it was not received right in time and thereafter, reminder was also sent on 25-4-2019 seeking opinion/consent/disagreement of the Administrative Department within a period of seven days, however, no response was received from the Administrative Department/respondent No.2 and therefore the matter has been considered and order of sanction was granted vide Annexure P-2 on 15-5-2019 which has been called in question in this writ petition. 5. No rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner after filing return by the State Government despite clear cut stand in the return by the State Government that no response was given by the Administrative Department/respondent No.2 which was sought by respondent No.1 by memo dated 22-3-2019 reiterated by reminder dated 25-4-2019. 6. Initially, this Court has reserved the matter for orders on 18-1-2021, but thereafter, by order dated 22-2-2021, directed the parties to file additional affidavit qua as to whether paragraph 2 of the circular dated 21-4-1997 i.e. reference of the matter to the Sub-Committee of the Cabinet in case of conflict between two Departments has been withdrawn or not, to make the record straight. In response to that, the petitioner has filed copies of various circulars including circular dated 10-7-1997 in which paragraph 2 of the circular dated 21-4-1997 referring the matter to the Sub-Committee of the Cabinet has been withdrawn. Similarly, the State has also filed affidavit on 5-3-2021 stating inter alia that in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Anand Mohan and another, (2015) 9 SCC 35 , the issue of applicability of the circular dated 21-4-1997 was considered by the Supreme Court and it was held that the circular dated 21-4-1997 stood partly modified vide the amending order issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh on 10-7-1997 relying upon paragraph 9 of the judgment of the Supreme Court and it has also been pleaded that the circulars of the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh in this regard have been superseded by the circular dated 26-5-2003 issued by the State of Chhattisgarh. 7. Mr. B.P. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in his oral/written note would submit that the order granting sanction for prosecution against the petitioner vide Annexure P-2 is ex facie illegal, without jurisdiction and without authority of law. 7. Mr. B.P. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in his oral/written note would submit that the order granting sanction for prosecution against the petitioner vide Annexure P-2 is ex facie illegal, without jurisdiction and without authority of law. He would further submit that if there is difference of opinion between two Departments of the State i.e. parent Department, here Water Resources Department and the Law Department, then the procedure laid down in the circular and its clarification issued by the State Government itself dated 26-5-2003 (Annexure A-2/R-1) is required to be followed. He would also submit that Annexure R-1 as filed by the State dated 26-5-2003 is even supplemented by circular dated 26-5-2003 in which it has been clarified that in cases like this, sanction can only be obtained in coordination with the Minister of Council of Political Affairs or with its concurrence and no such procedure has been followed in the present case. But despite the fact in the instant case, respondent No.2 vide Annexure P-1 has communicated its disagreement for grant of sanction for prosecution against the petitioner, yet the matter was not placed before the Sub-Committee of the Cabinet and the impugned order granting sanction for prosecution of the petitioner has been passed. He would further submit that if a thing is required to be done in a particular manner, it should be done in that manner or not at all and would rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Shyam Sunder, (2011) 8 SCC 737 and as such, the order granting sanction is illegal, contrary to law and deserves to be set-aside. 8. Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/respondents, would submit that the order granting sanction against the petitioner is strictly in accordance with law. 8. Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/respondents, would submit that the order granting sanction against the petitioner is strictly in accordance with law. He would further submit that in compliance of the circular dated 21-4-1997, response of the Administrative Department – respondent No.2 was called by memo dated 22-3-2019 (Annexure R-3) and the same was reiterated by reminder dated 25-4-2019, but respondent No.2 Department did not think it proper to submit its response and choose to keep mum despite the communication and the reminder having been received and as such, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh and another, (2012) 3 SCC 64 , the matter was considered by the competent authority for grant of sanction and respondent No.1 has granted sanction for prosecution against the petitioner and others vide Annexure P-2 on 15-5-2019 for the aforesaid offences in exercise of power conferred under Section 19(1)(b) of the PC Act read with Section 197 of the CrPC which is strictly in accordance with law. Even otherwise, the petitioner has failed to plead and establish failure of justice in the pleading and as such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 10. In order to consider the plea raised at the Bar, it would be appropriate to notice Section 19 of the PC Act which states as under: - “19. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 10. In order to consider the plea raised at the Bar, it would be appropriate to notice Section 19 of the PC Act which states as under: - “19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution.— (1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under sections 7, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction save as otherwise provided in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013— (a) in the case of a person who is employed, or as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed in connection with the affairs of the Union and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government, of that Government; (b) in the case of a person who is employed, or as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed in connection with the affairs of a State and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government, of that Government; (c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office. Provided that no request can be made, by a person other than a police officer or an officer of an investigation agency or other law enforcement authority, to the appropriate Government or competent authority, as the case may be, for the previous sanction of such Government or authority for taking cognizance by the court of any of the offences specified in this sub-section, unless— (i) such person has filed a complaint in a competent court about the alleged offences for which the public servant is sought to be prosecuted; and (ii) the court has not dismissed the complaint under section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) and directed the complainant to obtain the sanction for prosecution against the public servant for further proceeding: Provided further that in the case of request from the person other than a police officer or an officer of an investigation agency or other law enforcement authority, the appropriate Government or competent authority shall not accord sanction to prosecute a public servant without providing an opportunity of being heard to the concerned public servant: Provided also that the appropriate Government or any competent authority shall, after the receipt of the proposal requiring sanction for prosecution of a public servant under this sub-section, endeavour to convey the decision on such proposal within a period of three months from the date of its receipt: Provided also that in case where, for the purpose of grant of sanction for prosecution, legal consultation is required, such period may, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, be extended by a further period of one month: Provided also that the Central Government may, for the purpose of sanction for prosecution of a public servant, prescribe such guidelines as it considers necessary. Explanation.—For the purposes of subsection (1), the expression “public servant” includes such person— (a) who has ceased to hold the office during which the offence is alleged to have been committed; or (b) who has ceased to hold the office during which the offence is alleged to have been committed and is holding an office other than the office during which the offence is alleged to have been committed. (2) Where for any reason whatsoever any doubt arises as to whether the previous sanction as required under sub-section (1) should be given by the Central Government or the State Government or any other authority, such sanction shall be given by that Government or authority which would have been competent to remove the public servant from his office at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),— (a) no finding, sentence or order passed by a special Judge shall be reversed or altered by a court in appeal, confirmation or revision on the ground of the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, the sanction required under sub-section (1), unless in the opinion of that court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby; (b) no court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction granted by the authority, unless it is satisfied that such error, omission or irregularity has resulted in a failure of justice; (c) no court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on any other ground and no court shall exercise the powers of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any inquiry, trial, appeal or other proceedings. (4) In determining under sub-section (3) whether the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, such sanction has occasioned or resulted in a failure of justice the court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection could and should have been raised at any earlier stage in the proceedings. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) error includes competency of the authority to grant sanction; (b) a sanction required for prosecution includes reference to any requirement that the prosecution shall be at the instance of a specified authority or with the sanction of a specified person or any requirement of a similar nature.” 11. A focused glance of the aforesaid provision would show that previous sanction for prosecution is required in respect of a public servant who is employed and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government. In the instant case, respondent No.1 Department has granted sanction for prosecution. A focused glance of the aforesaid provision would show that previous sanction for prosecution is required in respect of a public servant who is employed and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government. In the instant case, respondent No.1 Department has granted sanction for prosecution. The main challenge that has been made is that the matter relating to the petitioner’s sanction for prosecution ought to have been placed before the Sub-Committee of the Cabinet, as the Administrative Department has not accorded sanction for prosecution of the petitioner as provided in the order dated 21-4-1997 modified by subsequent circular Annexure R-1. Since that procedure was not followed by respondent No.1, the order granting sanction is illegal and liable to be set-aside. 12. Since that procedure was not followed by respondent No.1, the order granting sanction is illegal and liable to be set-aside. 12. Circular dated 21-4-1997 bearing No.F.15(6)/96/1-10 (it is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has filed this circular which is at page 44 and the respondents/State has also filed the same vide Annexure R-1) has been issued by the Department of General Administration of the then Government of Madhya Pradesh which provides for grant of sanction for prosecution against a Government servant and which states as under: - e/;Áns’k 'kklu lkekU; Á’kklu foHkkx ea=ky; Øek¡d ,Q&15¼6½@96@1&10 Hkksiky] fnuk¡d 21 vÁSy 1997 Áfr] 'kklu ds leLr Áeq[k lfpo@lfpo] e/;Áns’k 'kklu] Hkksiky fo"k; %& 'kkldh; deZpkjh@vf/kdkjh ds fo:) vfHk;kstu dh Loh—fr dkfeZd] Á’kklfud lq/kkj ,oa Áf’k{k.k foHkkx dks vf/klwpuk Ø-,&1&1&88@mUupkl@¼1½@22] fnuk¡d 3 Qjojh] 1988 }kjk e/;Áns’k 'kklu dk;Z ¼vkoaVu½ fu;e esa la’kks/ku djrs gq, naM ÁfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 dh /kkjk 197 rFkk Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1947 dh /kkjk 6 ds v/khu vfHk;kstu dh Loh—fr dk fo"k; fof/k ,oa fo/kk;h dk;Z foHkkx dks lkSaik x;k gSA blh rkjrE; esa Kkiu Ø-,&1&88@mUupkl@1] fnuk¡d 9 Qjojh] 1988 esa ;g O;oLFkk Fkh fd vfHk;kstu Loh—fr dk vkns’k djus ds iwoZ fof/k ,oa fo/kk;h dk;Z foHkkx lacaf/kr 'kkldh; lsod ds Á’kkldh; foHkkx dk er ÁkIr djsxkA vfHk;kstu Loh—fr tkjh gksus esa foyac dks ns[krs gq, bl foHkkx ds ifji= Ø-,Q&11¼10½@96@1@10] fnuk¡d 31&5&96 }kjk ;g O;oLFkk dh xbZ Fkh fd yksdk;qDr laxBu }kjk 'kkldh; lsodksa ds fo:) ÁLrqr Ádj.kksa esa vfHk;kstu Loh—fr lh/ks fof/k ,oa fo/kk;h dk;Z foHkkx }kjk nh tk;sxhA 2- bl fo"k; ij 'kklu }kjk iqufoZpkj dj vc ;g fu.kZ; fy;k gS fd fof/k foHkkx }kjk vfHk;kstu Loh—fr tkjh djus ds iwoZ Á’kkldh; foHkkx dk vfHker ÁkIr fd;k tk;sxkA ÁfØ;k ;g jgsxh fd leLr vfHkys[kksa lfgr vfHk;kstu Loh—fr ds Ádj.k yksdk;qDr laxBu }kjk fof/k foHkkx dks Hksts tk;saxs tks mUgsa Á’kkldh; foHkkx dks HkstsaxsA Á’kkldh; foHkkx }kjk vius vfHker lfgr Ádj.k fof/k foHkkx dks okil fd;s tk;saxs] tks ml ij vkxkeh dk;Zokgh djsaxsA fof/k foHkkx rFkk Á’kkldh; foHkkx esa erHksn gksus dh fLFkfr esa Ádj.k Á’kkldh; foHkkx }kjk eaf=ifj"kn~ dh mi lfefr ds le{k ÁLrqr fd;k tk;sxkA 3- vfHk;kstu Loh—fr ds Ádj.kksa esa Á’kkldh; foHkkx }kjk viuk vfHker nsus ds fy, ,d ekg dh le;kof/k fu/kkZfjr dh tkrh gS] ;fn bl vof/k esa mudks vfHker ÁkIr ugha gksrk gS rks fof/k foHkkx fcuk muds vfHker ds vfHk;kstu Loh—fr tkjh dj ldsxkA 4- ;g vkns’k rRdky ÁHkko ls ykxw gksaxsA ftu Ádj.kksa esa vfHk;kstu Loh—fr tkjh ugha gqbZ gS muesa bl ifji= esa fu/kkZfjr ÁfØ;k dk ikyu fd;k tk;sxk] fdUrq ftu Ádj.kksa esa vfHk;kstu Loh—fr tkjh gks pqdh gS mu ij iqufoZpkj ugha fd;k tk;sxkA gLrk-@& ¼,-Ogh-Xokfy;jdj½ milfpo] e/;Áns’k 'kklu] lkekU; Á’kklu foHkkx 13. Paragraph 1 of the circular dated 21-4-1997 provides that the Department of Law & Legislative Affairs is the competent authority to grant sanction for prosecution under Section 6 of the PC Act, 1947 and also under Section 197 of the CrPC. Paragraph 2 of the above-stated circular further provides that in case of conflict between two Departments, the matter shall be referred to the Sub-Committee of the Cabinet. Paragraph 2 of the aforesaid circular providing for reference of matter to the Sub-Committee of the Cabinet, was withdrawn by circular dated 10-7-1997 which states as under: fo"k; & 'kkldh; deZpkjh@vf/kdkjh ds fo:) vfHk;kstu dh LohÑfrA lanHkZ & bl foHkkx dk ifji= Ø ,Q-15¼6½@96@1&10] fnukad 21&4&97A bl foHkkx ds lanfHkZr ifji= }kjk 'kkldh;@vf/kdkjh ds fo:) vfHk;kstu LohÑfr dh ÁfØ;k fu/kkZfjr dh xbZ gSA vkns’kkuqlkj mDr ifji= ds iSjk&2 esa mYysf[kr ÁfØ;k esa ls fuEu va’k foyksfir fd;k tkrk gS] & Þfof/k foHkkx rFkk Á’kkldh; foHkkx esa erHksn gksus dh fLFkfr esa Ádj.k Á’kkldh; foHkkx }kjk eaf=&ifj"kn~ dh mi&lfefr ds le{k ÁLrqr fd;k tk,xkAÞ lanfHkZr ifji= dh 'ks"k ÁfØ;k ;Fkkor jgsxh] Ñi;k Hkfo"; esa vfHk;kstu LohÑfr ds Ádj.kksa esa rn~uqlkj dk;Zokgh dh tkuk lqfuf’pr djsaA [ lkekU; Á’kklu foHkkx Øekad ,Q&15¼6½@96@1&10] Hkksiky] fnukad 10&7&97 ] 14. The above-stated modification of circular/order dated 21-4-1997 by circular/order dated 10-7-1997 to the extent that in case of conflict the matter would be required to be referred to the Sub-Committee of the Cabinet was also noticed by the Supreme Court in Anand Mohan’s case (supra) and circular/order dated 10-7-1997 was also reproduced and it was observed as under in paragraph 10: - “10. By the order dated 21-4-1997 (Annexure P-3), it is provided that the Department of Law and Legislative Affairs shall obtain opinion of the Administrative Department concerned before granting the sanction. It is further provided that in case of conflict between the two departments, the matter shall be referred to the sub-committee of the Cabinet. However, the order dated 21-4-1997 (Annexure P-3) was withdrawn vide Letter dated 10-7-1997 (Annexure P-4) to the extent that in case of conflict the matter would be required to be referred to the sub-committee of the Cabinet. The Letter dated 10-7-1997 (Annexure P-4) reads as follows: “State of Madhya Pradesh General Administrative Department No.F-15(6)/96/1-10 Bhopal dated 10-7-1997 To All Member Secretary/Secretaries of the Government State of Madhya Pradesh Bhopal. Sub.: Sanction for prosecution against the government employees/officers. The Letter dated 10-7-1997 (Annexure P-4) reads as follows: “State of Madhya Pradesh General Administrative Department No.F-15(6)/96/1-10 Bhopal dated 10-7-1997 To All Member Secretary/Secretaries of the Government State of Madhya Pradesh Bhopal. Sub.: Sanction for prosecution against the government employees/officers. Ref.: Circular No. F-15(6)96/1-10 dated 21-4-1997 issued by this Department Vide reference circular of this Department, the procedure for according sanction for prosecution was determined. As per order following part is deleted from the prescribed procedure in Para 2 of the said circular. ‘In case of conflict between the Law Department and the Administrative Department, the case shall be presented before the Sub-Committee of the Cabinet by the Administrative Department.” Remaining procedure of the reference circular shall remain as it is. Please ensure action in the cases of sanction for prosecution in future accordingly. sd/- A.V. Gwaliorkar Deputy Secretary State of M.P. General Administrative Department No. F-15(6)/96/1-10 Bhopal dated 10-7-1997 Copy to Officer on Special duty, Lokayukta Office, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal for information. sd/- A.V. Gwaliorkar Deputy Secretary State of M.P. General Administrative Department” 15. As such, the provision contained in circular/order dated 21-4-1997 providing that in case of conflict between two departments, matter shall be referred to the Sub-Committee of the Cabinet has already been withdrawn on the petitioner’s own showing by circular/order dated 10-7-1997 and duly noticed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Anand Mohan’s case (supra). Even the respondents/State has filed an affidavit to the effect that all the circulars of the erstwhile State of M.P. have been superseded by circular dated 26-5-2003. 16. However, the petitioner on 10-1-2020 has filed a copy of circular dated 26-5-2003 issued by the Principal Secretary, Department of General Administration providing for competent authority to grant sanction for prosecution and laying the procedure for grant of sanction under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The said circular is based on order No. F 1-1/2003/1/One dated 26-5-2003. 17. The respondents/State has filed copy of said order No.F 1-1/2003/1/One dated 26-5-2003 (Annexure R-2) issued by the then Chief Minister in which it has clearly been mentioned that power to grant sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act and Section 197 of the CrPC stands conferred to the Principal Secretary/Secretary of the Department of Law & Legislative Affairs, except in three cases including in which the Administrative Department of the concerned Government servant has opined its disagreement. The order dated 26-5-2003 published in the Chhattisgarh Gazette (Extraordinary) filed by the respondents/State, states as under: - lkekU; Á’kklu foHkkx ea=ky;] nkÅ dY;k.k flag Hkou] jk;iqj jk;iqj] fnuk¡d 26 ebZ 2003 vkns’k Øekad ,Q&1&103@1@,d-&Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 166 ds [k.M ¼2½ rFkk ¼3½ }kjk ÁnRr 'kfDr;ksa dk Á;ksx djrs gq, jkT;iky }kjk cuk, x, NRrhlxढ 'kklu ds dk;Z fu;eksa ds fu;e 13 ds v/khu tkjh fd, x, vuqiwjd vuqns’k Hkkx & ikap ds vuqns’k Øekad 2&d ds vuqlj.k esa rFkk iwoZorhZ e/;Áns’k 'kklu] lkekU; Á’kklu foHkkx ds vkns’k Øekad ,Q-,-3&37@99@,Q¼1½ fnukad 5&8&2000 tks fd NRrhlxढ jkT; ds fy, Hkh ykxw gksrk gS] dks NRrhlxढ jkT; ds lanHkZ esa la’kksf/kr djrs gq, ,rn~}kjk eSa] vthr tksxh] eq[; ea=h] NRrhlxढ 'kklu funsZ’k nsrk gwa fd fof/k ,oa fo/kk;h dk;Z foHkkx ds Hkkjlk/kd Áeq[k lfpo@lfpo] n.M ÁfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 dh /kkjk 197 rFkk Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1988 dh /kkjk 19 ds varxZr] vfHk;kstu LohÑfr ds fuEufyf[kr ekeyksa dks NksM+dj] 'ks"k ekeyksa dk fuiVkjk djsaxs%& ¼d½ Hkkjrh; Á’kklfud lsok] Hkkjrh; iqfyl rFkk Hkkjrh; ou lsok ds lnL;ksa ls lacaf/kr vfHk;kstu LohÑfr ds ekekys( ¼[k½ jkT; lsok ds ,sls vf/kdkjh tks jkT; 'kklu ds lfpo ds osrueku ;k blls mPprj osrueku esa dk;Zjr gksa] ls lacaf/kr vfHk;kstu LohÑfr ds ekeys( ¼x½ vfHk;kstu LohÑfr ds ,sls ekeys ftuesa Á’kkldh; foHkkx }kjk vfHk;kstu LohÑfr fn, tkus ij vlgefr O;Dr dh xbZ gS ijarq fof/k foHkkx dk er vfHk;kstu LohÑfr Ánku fd, tkus ds i{k esa gS lgh@& ¼vthr tksxh½ eq[;ea=h 18. In compliance of the order of the then Chief Minister, the General Administration Department has issued a circular on 26-5-2003 (which has been filed by the petitioner on 10-1-2020 along with Covering Memo) on the same day indicating the procedure and also providing for authority competent to grant sanction under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which states as under: - NRrhlxढ 'kklu lkekU; Á’kklu foHkkx ea=ky;] Mh-ds-,l-Hkou Øek¡d ,Q 1&2@2003@1@6 jk;iqj] fnuk¡d 26] ebZ] 2003 Áfr] lfpo] NRrhlxढ 'kklu] fof/k ,oa fo/kk;h dk;Z foHkkx ea=yk;] jk;iqj fo"k;%& 'kkldh; lsodksa ds ekeyksa esa n.M ÁfØ;k lafgrk rFkk Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e ds varxZr vfHk;kstu dh LohÑfr Ánku fd, tkus ckcr~A lanHkZ%& bl foHkkx ds vkns’k Øekad ,Q 1&1@2003@1@,Q fn- 26&5&2003A bl foHkkx ds lanfHkZr vkns’k }kjk iwoZorhZ e/;Áns’k 'kklu] lkekU; Á’kklu foHkkx ds vkns’k Øekad ,Q-,-3&37@99@,Q¼1½ fnukad 5-8-2000 dks la’kksf/kr djrs gq, bl vk’k; ds vkns’k Álkfjr fd, x, gSa fd fof/k ,oa fo/kkh; dk;Z foHkkx ds Hkkjlk/kd Áeq[k lfpo@lfpo fuEufyf[kr Jsf.k;ksa ds 'kkldh; lsodksa ds ekeyksa dks NksM+dj 'ks"k 'kkldh; lsodksa ds vfHk;kstu LohÑfr ds ekeyksa dk fuiVkjk djsaxsA ¼d½ Hkkjrh; Á’kklfud lsok] Hkkjrh; iqfyl lsok rFkk Hkkjrh; ou lsok ds lnL;ksa ls lacaf/kr vfHk;kstu LohÑfr ds ekeys( ¼[k½ jkT; lsok ds ,sls vf/kdkjh tks jkT; 'kklu ds lfpo ds osrueku ;k blls mPprj osrueku esa dk;Zjr gksa] ls lacaf/kr vfHk;kstu LohÑfr ds ekeys( ¼x½ vfHk;kstu LohÑfr ds ,sls ekeys ftuesa Á’kkldh; foHkkx }kjk vfHk;kstu LohÑfr fn, tkus ij vlgefr O;Dr dh xbZ gS ijarq fof/k foHkkx dk er vfHk;kstu LohÑfr Ánku fd, tkus ds i{k esa gSA 2- dk;Z fu;eksa ds Hkkx pkj ds funsZ’k ¼,d½¼¥½ rFkk ¼;;½ ds ifjÁs{; esa eq[; ea=hth us ;g Hkh funsZ’k fn, gSa fd Åij fyf[kr rhuksa Ádkj ds vfHk;kstu dh eatwjh ls lacaf/kr ekeys leUo; esa ÁLrqr fd, tk,axs rFkk bu ekekyksa esa vfHk;kstu dh LohÑfr Ánku djus dh ÁfØ;k fuEukuqlkj jgsxh%& ¼d½ vf[ky Hkkjrh; lsokvksa ds lnL;ksa ds fo:) Ádj.k% vf[ky Hkkjrh; lsokvksa ds lnL;ksa ds fo:) vfHk;kstu dh LohÑfr ds Ádj.k vuqla/kkudrkZ ,tsalh (investigating agency) }kjk leLr vfHkys[kksa lfgr fof/k foHkkx dks Hksts tk,axsA fof/k foHkkx] ÁkIr ÁLrko ij loZÁFke lacaf/kr vf/kdkjh ds Á’kkldh; foHkkx ¼;Fkk fLFkfr lkekU; Á’kklu foHkkx] x`g foHkkx vFkok ou foHkkx½ dk er ÁkIr djsxkA Á’kkldh; foHkkx vf/kdre ,d ekg esa viuk vfHker fof/k foHkkx dks HkstsxkA rRi’pkr~ fof/k foHkkx] vuqla/kkudrkZ ,tsalh ls ÁkIr ÁLrko ,oa Á’kkldh; foHkkx }kjk fn, x, vfHker dk ijh{k.k dj leUo; esa vkns’k ÁkIr djsxk] vkSj( (i) tgka dsoy /kkjk&197] n.M ÁfØ;k lafgrk] ds rgr vfHk;kstu LohÑfr visf{kr gks] ogka rRlaca/kh vkSipkfjd vkns’k tkjh djsxk] ;k fQj] ;Fkk fLFkfr] ÁLrko vLohÑr djus dh lwpuk rQrh’kdrkZ ,tsalh dks Hkstsxk( (ii) tgka /kkjk&197] n.M ÁfØ;k lafgrk] rFkk /kkjk&19] Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1988] nksuksa ds rgr vfHk;kstu LohÑfr visf{kr gks] ogka ÁFke ÁLrko ds ckjs esa Åij mi in (i) vuqlkj dk;Zokgh djsxk vkSj f}rh; ÁLrko ds ckjs esa jkT; 'kklu dk er fu/kkZfjr dj Ádj.k dsUnz ljdkj dks lanfHkZr djus gsrq lacaf/kr Á’kkldh; foHkkx dks HkstsxkA ¼[k½ jkT; lsokvksa ds ,sls vf/kdkfj;ksa] tks jkT; 'kklu ds lfpo ds osrueku ;k blls mPp osrueku esa dk;Zjr~ gksa] ds fo:) Ádj.k( bl Js.kh ds vf/kdkfj;ksa ds fo:) vfHk;kstu dh LohÑfr dh ÁfØ;k mi;ZqDr in 2 ¼d½ vuqlkj jgsxh & dsoy bl varj ds lkFk fd Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1988 dh /kkjk & 19 ds varxZr vfHk;kstu LohÑfr ds Ádj.k Hkh jkT; 'kklu }kjk gh fujkÑr fd, tk;saxsA ¼x½ vfHk;kstu LohÑfr ds ,sls ekeys ftuesa Á’kkldh; foHkkx }kjk vfHk;kstu LohÑfr fn, tkus ij vlgefr O;Dr dh xbZ gS ijarq fof/k foHkkx dk er vfHk;kstu LohÑfr Ánku fd, tkus ds i{k esa gS% bl Js.kh ds 'kkldh; lsodksa ds ekeyksa esa vfHk;kstu dh LohÑfr dh ÁfØ;k mi;ZqDr in 2¼[k½ vuqlkj gh jgsxhA 3- ;fn yksd vk;ksx laxBu dk vfHk;kstu LohÑfr dk ÁLrko vLohÑr djuk ÁLrkfor gks rks ,slk djus ds fy, eaf= ifj"kn~ dk jktuSfrd ekeyksa dh lfefr dk vuqeksnu ÁkIr fd;k tk,xkA 4- ;g vkns’k tkjh gksus ds fnukad ls bl laca/k esa iwoZ esa tkjh vfHk;kstu LohÑfr laca/kh vkns’k@funsZ’k rn~uqlkj la’kksf/kr ekus tk,axsA lgh@& ¼iadt f}osnh½ Áeq[k lfpo] NRrhlxढ 'kklu] lkekU; Á’kklu foHkkx 19. On a careful perusal of the order dated 26-5-2003 (Annexure R-2) and notification dated 26-5-2003, it is quite vivid that in all cases the competent authority to grant sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the PC Act and Section 197 of the CrPC will be the Principal Secretary/Secretary, Law & Legislative Affairs, except in three cases including in which the Administrative Department has expressed its disagreement for granting sanction and that will be referred to the co-ordination as it appears from clause 2¼[k½ of the said notification dated 26-5-2003. 20. At this stage, it is appropriate to mention here that though circular dated 26-5-2003 has been filed by the petitioner along with covering memo dated 10-1-2020, but no ground based on circular dated 26-5-2003 has been raised in the entire writ petition by amending the writ petition or otherwise making it part of pleading requiring the other side to reply the issue specifically. However, since the respondent – State has also referred to order dated 26-5-2003 (Annexure R-2) upon which the circular dated 26-5-2003 has been issued, it is being considered. 21.Now, the question would be, whether in the instant case, proper procedure as envisaged and noticed herein as per circular dated 26-5-2003 has been followed by respondent No.1 while granting sanction for prosecution under Section 19(1)(b) of the PC Act read with Section 197 of the CrPC. 22. The respondents/State has filed return and in paragraph 8 of the return they have clearly mentioned that the Office of the State Economic Offences Wing and the Anti Corruption Bureau vide letter dated 11-3-2019 made request to the Department of Law & Legislative Affairs for according sanction for prosecution against the petitioner and other accused persons and the said request letter was received by the Office of the Law & Legislative Affairs Department on 13-3-2019, and before considering the matter, respondent No.1 – Department of Law & Legislative Affairs following its earlier departmental circular and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Subramanian Swamy (supra), sent a communication to the Administrative Department of the petitioner i.e. respondent No.2 herein on 22-3-2019 (Annexure R-3) seeking opinion/consent/disagreement within a period of one month. Though the said communication dated 22-3-2019 was received by the Administrative Department – respondent No.2, but it was not replied necessitating issuance of reminder which was issued on 25-4-2019 to respondent No.2, yet no response was received from the Administrative Department till the date of consideration and ultimately, since the Department of Law & Legislative Affairs failed to get opinion agreeing or disagreeing the issue of prosecution of the petitioner from the Administrative Department i.e. respondent No.2, the Department of Law & Legislative Affairs proceeded to consider the issue for grant of sanction for prosecution against the petitioner. As such, since there is no response indicating disagreement between the Department of Law & Legislative Affairs and the Administrative Department of the petitioner i.e. the Water Resources Department, the Department of Law & Legislative Affairs has proceeded to consider the case and ultimately, granted sanction for prosecution of the petitioner on 15-5-2019 (Annexure P-2). 23. It is the case of the petitioner that the Administrative Department of the petitioner i.e. the Water Resources Department – respondent No.2 has expressed its disagreement on 16-5-2019 (Annexure P-1) for according sanction for prosecution of the petitioner. It would be appropriate to extract Annexure P-1 dated 16-5-2019 in order to make the record straight. 23. It is the case of the petitioner that the Administrative Department of the petitioner i.e. the Water Resources Department – respondent No.2 has expressed its disagreement on 16-5-2019 (Annexure P-1) for according sanction for prosecution of the petitioner. It would be appropriate to extract Annexure P-1 dated 16-5-2019 in order to make the record straight. Memorandum dated 16-5-2019 (Annexure P-1) states as under: - Ø-33281087@N-x-@2018 5820 dk;kZy; Áeq[k vfHk;ark ty lalk/ku foHkkx] f’koukFk&Hkou vVy uxj] jk;iqj ¼N-x-½ jk;iqj] fnuk¡d 16@05@2019 Áfr] lfpo] NRrhlxढ 'kklu] ty lalk/ku foHkkx] ea=yk; egkunh Hkou] vVy uxj jk;iqj fo"k; %& vijk/k Øekad 42@1996 /kkjk 120&ch] 420 Hkknfo ,oa lgifBr /kkjk 13¼1½ Mh] 13¼2½ ihlh ,DV 1988 esa loZJh ds-ds-of’k"B] rRdk-dk;Zikyu vfHk;ark] ty lalk/ku foHkkx dkads] cynkÅ pUnzkdj] rRdk-vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh] jke’kj.k JhokLro] nhid dqekj ikBd] uVojyky vxzoky] jktsUnz dqekj tSu] v’kksd dqekj oekZ] v’kksd dqekj xtfHk;s] lh-vkj-lkgw] rRdk-mivfHk;arkx.k ds fo:) vfHk;kstu LohÑfr ckcr~A lanHkZ%& 1 N-x-'kklu] t-la-fo-] dk i= Ø-,Q 04&01@31@LFkk- @2019] fn-27-03-2019 ,oa lela[;d i= fnukad 04-05-2019 2 fof/k ,oa fo/kk;h dk;Z foHkkx dk i= Ø-@108@2019@LFkk- @2019@3008@21&d fn-22-03-2019 3 fof/k ,oa fo/kk;h dk;Z foHkkx dk i= Ø- 4264@21&d¼vfHk½@N-x-@2019@vVy uxj fnukad 26-04- 2019 4 dk;kZy;hu i= Ø-33281087@N-x-@2018@4618] fnukad 12-04-2019 fo"k;karxZr Ádj.k esa lanfHkZr dk;kZy;hu i= fnukad 12-04- 2019 }kjk Ásf"kr vfHker@vuq’kalk ds ifjis{; esa N-x-'kklu ty lalk/ku foHkkx ds i= fnukad 04-05-2019 ds vuqlkj lqLi"V ldkj.k vfHker miyC/k djkus gsrq funsZf’kr fd;k x;k gSA Ádj.k dk iqu% lw{e ijh{k.k fd;k x;k] ftlds vuqlkj fnukad 05-12-1995 dks ntZ ÁFke lwpuk Áfrosnu ds vk/kkj ij ÁkjaHk Ádj.k esa ÁFke lwpuk Áfrosnu rRdkyhu vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh Lo-,e-lh-okgh ds fo:) ntZ fd;k x;k gS] rFkk blesa vU; vkjksihx.k ds uke ugha gSA vkjksih ,e-lh-okgh ds e`R;q lu~ 2004 esa gks xbZ gSA lanfHkZr i= esa nf’kZr vkjksihx.k esa ls pkj vkjksihx.k dh e`R;q gks xbZ gS] Ng lsokfuo`Rr gks x;s gS rFkk ,d e-Á-jkT; esa dk;Zjr gSA blh Ádj.k esa eq[; rduhdh ijh{kd ny Hkksiky ¼e-Á-½ }kjk fd;s x;s LFky fujh{k.k ds vk/kkj ij e-Á-'kklu Hkksiky ds i= Ø- 2366 fnukad 27-11-1997 ds vuqlkj vkjksi i= vkfn rS;kj dj N-x- 'kklu ty lalk/ku foHkkx }kjk fnukad 17-01-2003 dks foHkkxh; tkap lafLFkr dh xbZ Fkh ftlesa foHkkxh; tkap vf/kdkjh }kjk fnukad 28-09- 2015 dks tkap Áfrosnu ÁLrqr dj vkjksfir O;; dh jkf’k fdlh Áekf.kd vfHkys[k vkfn ds vk/kkj ij u gksus ls vkjksi vÁekf.kr ekuk x;k gS] rFkk Á’kkldh; foHkkx fLFkfr ds vuqlkj ,d&,d osruo`f) vlap;h ÁHkko ls jksds tkus dh y?kq 'kkfLr vf/kjksfir dj Ádj.k fnukad 05-09-2017 dks lekIr fd;k x;k gSA vkfFkZd vijk/k vUos"k.k C;wjks }kjk foHkkxh; tkap esa vf/kjksfir 'kkfLr ds vk/kkj ij gh vkjksih vf/kdkjh@deZpkjhx.k ds fo:) vfHk;kstu dh LohÑfr pkgh xbZ gS] rFkk Ádj.k esa vU; dksbZ lk{; ugha ik;s tkus ij Hkh Hkk-n-fo-dh /kkjk&120&ch] 420 rFkk ihlh- ,DV&1988 dh /kkjk&13¼1½ Mh] 13¼2½ vf/kjksfir fd;k tkuk nf’kZr gS] tks foHkkxh; tkap dh fo"k; oLrq esa lfEefyr ugha gSA bl fLFkfr esa ftu vkjksih vf/kdkfj;ksa ds fo:) vfHk;kstu dh LohÑfr pkgh xbZ gS] muds uke dk mYys[k ÁFke lwpuk Áfrosnu esa u gksus] tkap esa Ik;kZIr lk{; miyC/k u gksus rFkk ,d gh ÑR; gsrq vusd ckj nafMr djus dh fLFkfr mRiUu u gksus nsus gsrq Ádj.k esa vfHk;kstu dh LohÑfr fn;k tkuk mfpr Árhr ugha gksrk gSA vr% vfHk;kstu LohÑfr gsrq vlgefr O;Dr djus dh vuq’kalk dh tkrh gS] Ñi;k rn~uqlkj 'kklu Lrj ls vkxkeh dk;Zokgh gsrq lknj vuqjks/k gSA lgi=%&’kwU;A lgh@& Áeq[k vfHk;ark ty lalk/ku foHkkx] f’koukFk Hkou] vVy uxj] ftyk& jk;iqj ¼N-x-½ 24. A careful perusal of Annexure P-1 would show that it is authored by the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Raipur and addressed to the Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Water Resources Department (respondent No.2 herein) and it is dated 16-5-2019. It refers to two letters of the Water Resources Department dated 27-3-2019 & 4-5-2019 and two letters dated 22-3-2019 and 26-4-2019 issued by the Law & Legislative Affairs Department. 25. Thus, it is quite vivid that the above-stated communication of alleged disagreement with respect to grant of sanction qua the petitioner herein in the matter has been made by the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Raipur to the Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Water Resources Department and it is dated 16-5-2019 (Annexure P-1) i.e. after the order dated 15-5-2019 (Annexure P-2) granting sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the PC Act and Section 197 of the CrPC was passed, whereas the disagreement was required to be expressed and to be sent by the Administrative Department before the question of sanction is considered by respondent No.1 herein. 26. In the present case, the Administrative Department of the petitioner is the Water Resources Department which consists of Principal Secretary/Secretary to the Government who shall be the official head of the Department and of such other officers and servants subordinate to him as the Government may determine and opinion was required to be expressed by the Administrative Department through its Principal Secretary or Secretary to the Government and that was required to be authored and sent to the Department of Law & Legislative Affairs within the time prescribed as in the memorandum dated 22-3-2019 (Annexure R-3) followed by memo dated 25-4-2019, it has clearly been mentioned by respondent No.1 that the question for sanction has to be considered within three months as held by the Supreme Court in Subramanian Swamy (supra). 27. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Subramanian Swamy (supra), at paragraph 81, has suggested the Parliament for preparing guidelines which are as under: - “81. In my view, Parliament should consider the constitutional imperative of Article 14 enshrining the Rule of Law wherein “due process of law” has been read into by introducing a time-limit in Section 19 of the PC Act, 1988 for its working in a reasonable manner. In my view, Parliament should consider the constitutional imperative of Article 14 enshrining the Rule of Law wherein “due process of law” has been read into by introducing a time-limit in Section 19 of the PC Act, 1988 for its working in a reasonable manner. Parliament may, in my opinion, consider the following guidelines: (a) All proposals for sanction placed before any sanctioning authority empowered to grant sanction for prosecution of a public servant under Section 19 of the PC Act must be decided within a period of three months of the receipt of the proposal by the authority concerned. (b) Where consultation is required with the Attorney General or the Solicitor General or the Advocate General of the State, as the case may be, and the same is not possible within the three months mentioned in clause (a) above, an extension of one month period may be allowed, but the request for consultation is to be sent in writing within the three months mentioned in clause (a) above. A copy of the said request will be sent to the prosecuting agency or the private complainant to intimate them about the extension of the time-limit. (c) At the end of the extended period of time-limit, if no decision is taken, sanction will be deemed to have been granted to the proposal for prosecution, and the prosecuting agency or the private complainant will proceed to file the charge-sheet/complaint in the court to commence prosecution within 15 days of the expiry of the aforementioned time-limit.” 28. It appears from the record and it has emphatically been stated by the respondents that despite memo dated 22-3-2019 (Annexure R-3) and reminder dated 25-4-2019 which also find place in Annexure P-1 and which were received by the Administrative Department – respondent No.2, no response was served to respondent No.1 who is the competent authority to consider the issue of grant of sanction and therefore in absence of any disagreement, the competent authority to grant sanction being the Department of Law & Legislative Affairs has proceeded to consider the matter and issued order dated 15-5-2019 granting sanction for prosecution against the petitioner and others. Memo dated 16-5-2019 (Annexure P-1) has admittedly not been issued by the Administrative Department of the petitioner, that too was issued by the Chief Engineer of the Department of Water Resources after the order granting sanction was passed on 15-5-2019 and that has been addressed to the Secretary, Water Resources Department i.e. the Administrative Department of the petitioner which cannot be said to be disagreement of the Administrative Department that too after the order granting sanction was passed by respondent No.1 on 16-5-2019. As such, the submission raised on behalf of the petitioner that there is disagreement between the Administrative Department of the petitioner and the Department of Law & Legislative Affairs is nowhere established on record, rather it is established that despite memo dated 22-3-2019 reiterated by reminder dated 25-4-2019, the Administrative Department kept pin-drop silence over the matter and ultimately, finding no opinion of the Administrative Department (respondent No.2) either way, the Department of Law & Legislative Affairs being the authority competent to grant sanction has rightly considered the issue and granted sanction for prosecution against the petitioner which cannot be taken exception to by the petitioner on the ground of issuance of alleged memo/letter dated 16-5-2019 by the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, who is one of the officers of the Administrative Department at District level and it was not issued by the Administrative Department through its Secretary (respondent No.2). If there is any disagreement between the two Departments i.e. respondents No.1 & 2 about the grant of sanction of the petitioner, then the matter ought to have been referred to coordination as per the circular dated 26-5-2003. Thus, the petitioner has failed to make out a case on facts that there is disagreement between the Administrative Department (respondent No.2) and the Department of Law & Legislative Affairs (respondent No.1) warranting its case to be placed for consideration before the appropriate competent authority. 29. Apart from this, in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Virender Kumar Tripathi, (2009) 15 SCC 533 , the question considered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court was the effect of non-consultation by the Department of Law & Legislative Affairs with that of the parent department/Administrative Department of the respondent-accused therein before granting sanction under Sections 19(1) & 19(2) of the PC Act. Their Lordships considered the issue threadbare and held that if the State Government has granted approval for sanction and said sanction was granted by the State Government by and in the name of the Governor of the State through the Additional Secretary, Department of Law & Legislative Affairs, the order granting sanction is in accordance with law and the advice at the most is an interdepartmental matter and in absence of advice, the order granting sanction cannot be interdicted unless there is failure of justice. In paragraph 8 of the report, it has been held as under: - “8. So far as the defect in sanction aspect is concerned, the circular on which the High Court has placed reliance needs to be noted. The Circular in question is dated 9-2-1988 the relevant portion reads as follows : "The Government also decided that before giving approval of prosecutions, the Principal Secretary, Law and Legal Department will obtain the advice of department concerned." A bare perusal of the paragraph shows that before giving approval for prosecution, advice of the department concerned was necessary. The question arises whether the absence of advice renders the sanction inoperative. Undisputedly the sanction has been given by the Department of Law and Legislative Affairs. The State Government had granted approval of the prosecution. As noted above, the sanction was granted in the name of the Governor of the State by the Additional Secretary, Department of Law and Legislative Affairs. The advice at the most is an interdepartmental matter. 9. Further, the High Court has failed to consider the effect of Section 19(3) of the Act. The said provision makes it clear that no finding, sentence or order passed by a Special Judge shall be reversed or altered by a court of appeal on the ground of absence of/or any error, omission or irregularity in sanction required under sub-section (1) of Section 19 unless in the opinion of the court a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby.” 30. Similarly, in the matter of State of Bihar and others v. Rajmangal Ram, (2014) 11 SCC 388 , the question for consideration before the Supreme Court was whether sanction for prosecution granted by the Department of Law & Legislative Affairs is valid or not, as it was not granted by the parent department. Similarly, in the matter of State of Bihar and others v. Rajmangal Ram, (2014) 11 SCC 388 , the question for consideration before the Supreme Court was whether sanction for prosecution granted by the Department of Law & Legislative Affairs is valid or not, as it was not granted by the parent department. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court following the principle laid down in Virender Kumar Tripathi’s case (supra) have clearly held that interdicting a criminal proceeding midcourse on ground of invalidity of the sanction order will not be appropriate unless failure of justice has occasioned by any such error, omission or irregularity in the sanction and such failure of justice can be established not at the stage of framing of charge but only after the trial has commenced and the evidence is led. Paragraph 7 of the report states as under: - “7. The above view also found reiteration in Parkash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab, (2007) 1 SCC 1 wherein it was, inter alia, held that mere omission, error or irregularity in sanction is not to be considered fatal unless it has resulted in failure of justice. In Parkash Singh Badal, (supra) it was further held that Section 19(1) of the PC Act is a matter of procedure and does not go to the root of jurisdiction. On the same line is the decision of this Court in R. Venkatkrishnan v. CBI, (2009) 11 SCC 737 . In fact, a three-Judge Bench in State of M.P. v. Virender Kumar Tripathi, (supra) while considering an identical issue, namely, the validity of the grant of sanction by the Additional Secretary of the Department of Law and Legislative Affairs of the Government of Madhya Pradesh instead of the authority in the parent department, this Court held that in view of Section 19(3) of the PC Act, interdicting a criminal proceeding mid-course on ground of invalidity of the sanction order will not be appropriate unless the court can also reach the conclusion that failure of justice had been occasioned by any such error, omission or irregularity in the sanction. It was further held that failure of justice can be established not at the stage of framing of charge but only after the trial has commenced and evidence is led (para 10 of the report).” 31. It was further held that failure of justice can be established not at the stage of framing of charge but only after the trial has commenced and evidence is led (para 10 of the report).” 31. Last but not the least, in Anand Mohan’s case (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court relying upon Rajmangal Ram’s case (supra) considering the circulars in hand which have arisen from the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh, held in paragraphs 14, 18 and 19 as under: - “14. We are unable to accept the view taken by the High Court for the reason that from Annexure P-1 and Annexure P-2, it is evident that the power to grant the sanction for prosecution, already existed with the Department of Law and Legislative Affairs, since February 1988. The Circular Letter dated 28-2-1998 (Annexure P-5) does not confer any new power and it only clarifies that Department of Law and Justice is a competent authority not only in respect of investigations made by Lokayukta Organization, but also the State Economic Offences Investigation Wing. The power with Appellant 2 to grant the sanction is, in fact, conferred by the rule as amended vide Notification dated 3-2-1988 published in the Official Gazette. After such amendment in the rule whereby power to grant sanction was delegated to the Department of Law and Justice, it cannot said that Administrative Department had power to decline sanction as it has done vide its order dated 10-7-1997. 18. From the sanction granted by the Law Department, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure P-8, it is evident that the authority has examined the material on record before granting the sanction. 19. Therefore, we are of the view that the High Court has erred in law in allowing the writ petition filed by the respondents seeking quashing of sanction dated 20-11-2012 granted by Appellant 2, the Secretary, Department of Law and Legislative Affairs, Government of Madhya Pradesh. We do not find any infirmity as to the competence of Appellant 2 to grant the sanction in the matter for the reasons discussed above. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 3-9-2013, Anand Mohan v. State of M.P., WP No.21246 of 2012, order dated 3-9-2013 (MP), passed by the High Court, is set aside.” 32. We do not find any infirmity as to the competence of Appellant 2 to grant the sanction in the matter for the reasons discussed above. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 3-9-2013, Anand Mohan v. State of M.P., WP No.21246 of 2012, order dated 3-9-2013 (MP), passed by the High Court, is set aside.” 32. A careful perusal of the entire petition would show that there is no whisper in the writ petition as framed and filed before this Court that on account of alleged invalidity in the order granting sanction, failure of justice has occasioned. As such, the petition lacks plea qua failure of justice as required under Section 19(3) of the PC Act. 33. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid legal analysis, following facts would emerge on the face of record: - 1. The petitioner has failed to make out a case on facts that there is disagreement between the Administrative Department i.e. the Department of Water Resources (respondent No.2) and the Department of Law and Legislative Affairs (respondent No.1) warranting his case to be placed for consideration before the appropriate competent authority. 2. In the writ petition as framed and filed, the plea of failure of justice on account of alleged error, omission or irregularity in sanction as required under Section 19(3) of the PC Act is missing in absence of which the order granting sanction cannot be interdicted. 34. Thus, considering the matter from any angle, the petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference in the order granting sanction dated 15-5-2019 (Annexure P-2) for his prosecution for offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act and Sections 120B & 420 of the IPC. 35. As a fallout and consequence of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the instant writ petition, it deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost(s).