JUDGMENT : Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. 1. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was holding the post of Transport Inspector at Mandar District Sirohi in the year 2012 when the ACB Udaipur organized a raid and inspected the office of Tax Collection at Mandar on 13.10.2012 wherein it was alleged that the petitioner was having an amount of Rs. 34,500/- in his pocket which was duly explained by the petitioner. 2. It was stated by the petitioner that the amount of Rs. 29,340/- was the tax collected from the various vehicles with due receipts provided to them and the same was to be deposited in the Treasury. The remaining amount of Rs. 5160/- was the amount which he had withdrawn from ATM for his personal use and medical treatment. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the ACB Authorities while submitting their investigation report observed the aforesaid facts and noted that no case is prima facie made out against the petitioner. The matter was sent to the Assistant Director (Prosecution) and the concerned Assistant Director (Prosecution) has also agreed with the result of the ACB. However, without there being any new facts coming on record, in an autocratic manner, the ACB Authorities sent the matter for prosecution sanction by sending a draft prosecution sanction order and the concerned Appointing Authority has filled the dotted lines without independent application of mind and without even examining the record and report of the ACB. 4. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the petitioner has filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. also before this Court wherein this Court noticed the aforesaid facts and allowed the petitioner to take up the issue before the ACB Court, if required. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the prosecution sanction granted by the Department dated 5.10.2017 is vitiated in law as the same has been issued without independent application of mind which is necessary. It is submitted that the very purpose of issuing prosecution sanction stands negated if the Appointing Authority is required to only fill the dotted lines as per the draft sent by the ACB. 5. It is submitted that the very purpose of issuing prosecution sanction stands negated if the Appointing Authority is required to only fill the dotted lines as per the draft sent by the ACB. 5. Learned Senior counsel has taken this Court to the draft sent by the ACB for prosecution sanction which mentions name of the petitioner and also leaves one blank line for filling up name of the concerned officer, who is to issue the prosecution sanction and thereafter learned Senior Counsel has also taken this Court to the actual prosecution sanction to show the similarity between the two. 6. Learned Senior counsel further submits that the issue related to year 2012 for which prosecution sanction was issued in 2017 in an autocratic manner and without application of mind. He submits that the ACB had itself taken a decision, prima facie, not to initiate the criminal action against the petitioner but to only propose departmental proceedings. 7. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that a circular was issued by the State Government, DOP dated 15.5.2012 wherein it was advised to all the Head of Departments to independently apply mind before granting prosecution sanction. 8. Learned Senior Counsel relied on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in case of Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan vs. State of Gujarat reported in 1997 (7) SCC 622 , in support of his submissions to submit that sanction of prosecution requires independent application of mind and the same cannot be issued by filling the dotted lines. Learned counsel has also relied on judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in SBCWP No. 590/2010 : Subhash Bhatia & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on 10.12.2010 wherein similar observations have been followed by this Court. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the ACB submits that the ACB Authorities had examined the entire case and after having reached to the conclusion that case is made out as against the petitioner, sent the entire documents along with a draft mentioning to the Head of Department for issuing a formal prosecution sanction. It is submitted that the application of mind has already been applied at the ACB level. 10. It is submitted that the application of mind has already been applied at the ACB level. 10. On behalf of the respondent No. 1, a separate reply has been filed and it is submitted that there is no constitutional right of the petitioner which can be said to have been infringed or violated and it is an administrative order which does not require to be reviewed judicially. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents has also relied on judgment passed by Supreme Court in case of Tata Cellular vs. Union of India reported in (1994) 6 SCC 651 , to submit that the only scope available for this Court is to confine itself to the question of legality of the order and whether the decision making authority has exceeded itself or committed an error of law or committed breach of rule of natural justice or reached to the conclusion which no reasonable tribunal would have reached or abused its powers. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner was actively involved in the offence and the prosecution sanction has been rightly granted. 13. I have considered the submissions. 14. In Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan (supra) after considering Tata Cellular (supra), the Supreme has observed as under:- "18. The validity of the sanction would, therefore, depend upon the material placed before the sanctioning authority and the fact that all the relevant facts, material and evidence have been considered by the sanctioning authority. Consideration implies application of mind. The order of sanction must ex facie disclose that the sanctioning authority had considered the evidence and other material placed before it. This fact can also be established by extrinsic evidence by placing the relevant files before the Court to show that all relevant facts were considered by the sanctioning authority. 19. Since the validity of "Sanction" depends on the applicability of mind by the sanctioning authority to the facts of the case as also the material and evidence collected during investigation, it necessarily follows, that the sanctioning authority has to apply its own independent mind for the generation of genuine satisfaction whether prosecution has to be sanctioned or not. The mind of the sanctioning authority should not be under pressure from any quarter nor should any external force be acting upon it to take decision one way or the other. The mind of the sanctioning authority should not be under pressure from any quarter nor should any external force be acting upon it to take decision one way or the other. Since the discretion to grant or not to grant sanction vests absolutely in the sanctioning authority, its discretion should be shown to have not been affected by any extraneous consideration. If is shown that the sanctioning authority was unable to apply its independent mind for any reason whatsoever or was under an obligation or compulsion or constraint to grant the sanction, the order will be bad for the reason that the discretion of the authority "not to sanction" was taken away and it was compelled to act mechanically to sanction the prosecution. 21. The question is whether the High Court could issue a mandamus of their and whether the order of Sanction, in these circumstances, is valid. 22. Mandamus which is a discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution is requested to be issued, inter alia, to compel performance of public duties which may be administrative, ministerial or statutory in nature. Statutory duty may be either directory or mandatory. Statutory duties, if they are intended to be mandatory in character, are indicated by the use of the words "shall" or "must". But this is not conclusive as "shall" and "must" have, sometimes, been interpreted as "may". What is determinative of the nature of duty, whether it is obligatory, mandatory or directory, is the scheme of the Statute in which the 'duty" has been set out. Even if the "Duty" is not set out clearly and specially in the Statute, it may be implied as co-relative to a "Right". 23. In the performance of this Study, if the authority in whom the discretion is vested under the Statute, does not act independently and passes an order under the instructions and orders of another authority, the Court would intervene in the matter, quash the orders and issue a mandamus to that authority to exercise its own discretion." 15. 23. In the performance of this Study, if the authority in whom the discretion is vested under the Statute, does not act independently and passes an order under the instructions and orders of another authority, the Court would intervene in the matter, quash the orders and issue a mandamus to that authority to exercise its own discretion." 15. Thus, from reading aforesaid, this Court is of the firm view that if the Authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions as laid down and failed to exercise its discretion which is required to be exercised or failed to act according to the law as it is required to, this Court can interfere and set aside an order wherein the aforesaid principles are not followed. The State Government had already issued a circular on 15.5.2012 to the Head of Department to independently apply their mind before passing prosecution sanction. 16. Admittedly, the Principal Secretary, Transport Department has only filled up the dotted lines. While issuing prosecution sanction dated 5.10.2017, he failed to take notice of the observations in the investigation report of the ACB. Thus, it is a case where this Court is satisfied that there has been a complete non-application of mind while issuing prosecution sanction. 17. Consequently, without much ado, this Court deems it appropriate to quash the prosecution sanction dated 5.10.2017 issued by the Principal Secretary, Transport Department and the same is accordingly quashed 18. The question now arises whether the matter should be remitted back to the Authority for reconsideration of the matter and to pass a fresh order of sanction. 19. In this regard, it is informed by the learned Senior Counsel that the petitioner has already attained superannuation on 31.07.2020 and the allegation of having excess amount with him of Rs. 5160/- is of the year 2012 which has been duly found to be explained of having withdrawn from ATM by the concerned person. 20. In Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan (supra), the Supreme has observed as under:- "39. Normally when the sanction order is held to be bad, the case is remitted back to the authority for re-consideration of the matter and to pass a fresh order of sanction in accordance with law. 20. In Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan (supra), the Supreme has observed as under:- "39. Normally when the sanction order is held to be bad, the case is remitted back to the authority for re-consideration of the matter and to pass a fresh order of sanction in accordance with law. But in the instant case, the incident is of 1983 and therefore, after a lapse of fourteen years, it will not, in our opinion, be fair just to direct that the proceedings may again be initiated from the stage of sanction so as to expose the appellant to another innings of litigation and keep him on trial for an indefinitely long period contrary to the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution which, as a part of right to life, philosophizes early and of criminal proceedings through a speedy trial." 21. This Court finds that the petitioner has already attained superannuation and taking into consideration the allegations and observations made by the ACB investigation relating to the amount of Rs. 5160/- being as the personal amount and the opinion of Assistant Director (Prosecution) which has been taken notice in the connected criminal misc. petition, this Court is satisfied that no purpose would be served in remanding the matter to the authorities for prosecution sanction after a period of almost 9 years and this Court is inclined to give a quietus to the case so far as it relates to the petitioner. Accordingly, the proceedings against the petitioner are directed to be closed. 22. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. All pending applications stand disposed of.