ORDER : This petition calls in question an order of approval granted as required under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) dated 03.02.2021 for conduct of proceedings against the petitioners. 2. Sans unnecessary details, facts germane for consideration of the lis are as follows :- The first petitioner at the relevant point in time was working as Assistant Director in the Department of Agriculture and has now retired on attaining the age of superannuation. The second petitioner was working as Joint Director in the Department of Agriculture. 3. One Smt. M.H.Vijayalakshmi registered complaint before the Principal Secretary of the Department of Agriculture on 09.05.2019 alleging various irregularities by the incumbents of office in the Krishi Bhagya Scheme for the period between 2016 and 2019. During the Pendency of initiation of any proceedings in terms of the complaint, the complainant files second complaint before Anti Corruption Bureau on 30.05.2019 and again third complaint before the Lokayukta on 01.06.2019, all on the same set of facts. Thus there were three complaints to three different authorities on the same set of facts, almost at the same time. 4. The Lokayukta, on the complaint holds a detailed enquiry and submits its report on 21.06.2019 opining that the allegations levelled in the complaint against the petitioners and the like were unsubstantiated. 5. During the pendency of proceedings either before the Anti Corruption Bureau or the Government, the Hon’ble Chief Minister on 07.09.2019 issues a general direction appointing a three Member Committee to conduct enquiry statewide into the allegations that were levelled against the petitioners and the like and to submit report. The period the committee was directed to hold an enquiry was between 2014 and 2018. 6. After the Hon’ble Chief Minister ordering enquiry statewide, complainant who had registered the complaint before Anti Corruption Bureau withdraws her complaint before it, on the ground that she has been victorious in getting a statewide enquiry being conducted on the allegations levelled by her. The communication of withdrawal of the said complaint dated 04.10.2019 was served upon Anti Corruption Bureau. 7. The three member Committee that was constituted pursuant to the directions of the Hon’ble Chief Minister submitted its report on 23.01.2020 holding that there was no substance in the allegations levelled thereby exonerated the petitioners and the like of the allegations. The communication of withdrawal of the said complaint dated 04.10.2019 was served upon Anti Corruption Bureau. 7. The three member Committee that was constituted pursuant to the directions of the Hon’ble Chief Minister submitted its report on 23.01.2020 holding that there was no substance in the allegations levelled thereby exonerated the petitioners and the like of the allegations. After all these aforesaid proceedings, after about 9 months of submission of report to the government by the committee constituted by the Hon’ble Chief Minister, Additional Director General of Police of the Anti Corruption Bureau communicates to the competent authority on 19.10.2020, seeking approval in terms of Section 17A of the Act, for commencement of proceedings which would be a prelude for setting criminal law in motion against the petitioners. This resulted in passing of the order impugned granting approval under Section 17A of the Act r/w General Circular dated 14.03.2016. It is this order of approval dated 03.02.2021 that is called in question in this writ petition. 8. Heard Sri Nitin Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Shivakumar R. Tengli, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State. 9. The learned counsel Sri Nitin Ramesh has for the petitioners would vehemently argue and contend that (a) the Lokayukta after an enquiry had closed the case in favor of the petitioners, (b) the complaint registered against the petitioners had resulted in their exoneration in the statewide enquiry ordered by a separate committee constituted by the Hon’ble Chief Minister which included the period in which the petitioners were functioning in Kalaburagi District, (c) granting of approval ought to have been on consideration of the purport of the General Circular and the intent of Section 17A of the Act and (d) a bald approval without application of mind of the nature that is granted in the petition is contrary to law. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that, the Government by communication dated 01.03.2021 has closed all the proceedings against all the officers concerning alleged irregularities in the Krishi Bhagya Scheme and, therefore contends that fresh proceedings also cannot be taken by the Government against the petitioners. 11. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State would submit that his submissions may be taken as his objections to the petition. 11. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State would submit that his submissions may be taken as his objections to the petition. He would contend that the impugned order is only an approval proceeding which need not contain reasons. He would submit that the order does not suffer from non-application of mind at all as what is needed is considered and on that ground the impugned order cannot be quashed. He would seek dismissal of the writ petition. 12. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions of the respective learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the material on record. 13. The amendment dated 26.07.2018 introduced several changes to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. One such amendment was introducing Section 17A with an object of giving protection to public servants who have done or ordered or approved certain actions as public servants in the bonafide discharge of their official functions without any dishonesty or malafide intentions. The amendment in the form of this new Section was necessitated owing to certain unfortunate circumstances where even honest officers were prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 14. The amendment in the form of this new Section was necessitated owing to certain unfortunate circumstances where even honest officers were prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 14. Since the marrow of the lis lies in consideration and interpretation of the newly introduced Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which was brought into force on 26.07.2018, Section 17A is extracted for the purpose of quick reference: “17-A. Enquiry or inquiry or investigation of offences relatable to recommendations made or decision taken by public servant in discharge of official functions or duties.—(1) No police officer shall conduct any enquiry or inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant under this Act, where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties, without the previous approval - (a) in the case of a person who is or was employed, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of that Government; (b) in the case of a person who is or was employed, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of that Government; (c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed: Provided that no such approval shall be necessary for cases involving arrest of a person on the spot on the charge of accepting or attempting to accept any undue advantage for himself or for any other person: Provided further that the concerned authority shall convey its decision under this section within a period of three months, which may, for reasons to be recorded in writing by such authority, be extended by a further period of one month.” In terms of the above extracted provision of law introduced by an amendment, no Police Officer shall conduct any enquiry or inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decisions taken by such public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties without the previous approval of the officer or authority concerned. 15. Clause (a) thereof provides that in case of public servant who is or was employed in connection with the affairs of the Union at the time when the offence alleged to have been committed, the previous approval of the Central Government shall be obtained. Clause (b) likewise provides that in case of a public servant who is or was an employee in connection with the affairs of the State at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committee, the approval of the State Government shall be obtained before proceeding. Clause (c) provides that in case of any other person who comes within the definition of public servant previous approval of the competent authority to remove him from office at the time when the offence alleged to have been committee should be obtained. The narrative hereinabove cannot but indicate that the object of the Section was to protect public servants from malicious, vexatious or baseless prosecution. However, if enquiry into the circumstances in which the alleged administrative or official act was done by the public servant or where malfeasance committed by the public servant which would involve an element of dishonesty or impropriety is to be proceeded against, the approval of the competent authority is required. 16. In my considered view Section 17A and its purport must be observed with complete strictness bearing in mind public interest and protection available to such officers against whom offences are alleged, failing which many a time it would result in a malicious prosecution. Section 17A is clearly a filter that the prosecution must pass in order to discourage or avoid vexatious prosecution, though cannot be considered as a protective shield for the guilty, but a safeguard for the innocent. 17. The provision (supra) was also considered by the Apex Court in the case of YESHWANTH SINHA v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION reported in (2020) 2 SCC 338 . The Apex Court though did not consider as to how the previous approval of the competent authority has to be taken, but considered the amendment and its importance in the following paragraphs: "117. The Apex Court though did not consider as to how the previous approval of the competent authority has to be taken, but considered the amendment and its importance in the following paragraphs: "117. In terms of Section 17-A, no police officer is permitted to conduct any enquiry or inquiry or conduct investigation into any offence done by a publi c servant where the offence alleged is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by the public servant in discharge of his public functions without previous approval, inter alia, of the authority competent to remove the public servant from his office at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed. In respect of the public servant, who is involved in this case, it is clause (c), which is applicable. Unless, therefore, there is previous approval, there could be neither inquiry or enquiry or investigation. It is in this context apposite to notice that the complaint, which has been filed by the petitioners in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 298 of 2018, moved before the first respondent CBI, is done after Section 17A was inserted. The complaint is dated 4.10.2018. Para 5 sets out the relief which is sought in the complaint which is to register an FIR under various provisions. Paras 6 and 7 of the complaint are relevant in the context of Section 17-A, which read as follows: “6. We are also aware that recently, Section 17-A of the Act has been brought in by way of an amendment to introduce the requirement of prior permission of the Government for investigation or inquiry under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 7. We are also aware that this will place you in the peculiar situation, of having to ask the accused himself, for permission to investigate a case against him. We realise that your hands are tied in this matter, but we request you to at least take the first step, of seeking permission of the Government under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act for investigating this offence and under which, “the concerned authority shall convey its decision under this section within a period of three months, which may, for reasons to be recorded in writing by such authority, be extended by a further period of one month”. (emphasis supplied) 118. (emphasis supplied) 118. Therefore, the petitioners have filed the complaint fully knowing that Section 17A constituted a bar to any inquiry or enquiry or investigation unless there was previous approval. In fact, a request is made to at least take the first step of seeking permission under Section 17-A of the 2018 Act. Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 298 of 2018 was filed on 24.10.2018 and the complaint is based on non-registration of the FIR. There is no challenge to Section 17-A. Under the law, as it stood, both on the date of filing the petition and even as of today, Section 17-A continues to be on the statute book and it constitutes a bar to any inquiry or enquiry or investigation. The petitioners themselves, in the complaint, request to seek approval in terms of Section 17-A but when it comes to the relief sought in the writ petition, there was no relief claimed in this behalf. 119. Even proceeding on the basis that on petitioners' complaint, an FIR must be registered as it purports to disclose cognizable offences and the Court must so direct, will it not be a futile exercise having regard to Section 17-A. I am, therefore, of the view that though otherwise the petitioners in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 298 of 2018 may have made out a case, having regard to the law actually laid down in Lalita Kumari [Lalita kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524], and more importantly, Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, in a review petition, the petitioners cannot succeed. However, it is my view that the judgment sought to be reviewed, would not stand in the way of the first respondent in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 298 of 2018 from taking action on Ext. P-1, complaint in accordance with law and subject to first respondent obtaining previous approval under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act." The Apex Court has considered the importance of previous approval of the competent authority in the afore-extracted judgment. 18. Section 17A casts an obligation of application of mind on the part of the Competent Authority in three situations. The Section makes it clear that no officer shall conduct any enquiry or inquiry or investigation without previous approval. 18. Section 17A casts an obligation of application of mind on the part of the Competent Authority in three situations. The Section makes it clear that no officer shall conduct any enquiry or inquiry or investigation without previous approval. Therefore, the approving authority will have to look into the materials, apply its mind in all the three contingencies i.e., enquiry or inquiry or investigation. Though, enquiry and inquiry are often used interchangeably, there exists a difference between the two. Etymologically, the source of both enquiry and inquiry could be the same as ‘en’ is derived from French and ‘in’ is from Latin. Inquiry has a formal and official ring to it. Enquiry is informal and can be unofficial. Enquiry could even mean, to question; Inquiry is a formal investigation; investigation is a search. Therefore, the act casts an obligation of application of mind upon the authority to consider whether approval is sought for an enquiry, inquiry or an investigation. It becomes imperative for the authority to apply its mind to what is brought before it, as application of mind is the bedrock of any order that an authority passes, failing which, it would be contrary to the principles of natural justice, as non-application of mind is in itself violative of principles of natural justice. 19. Application of mind by an authority is demonstrable only in the order that the authority makes, for the order to demonstrate application of mind by the authority, it must contain the reasons, as recording of reasons in an order is the only way that one can construe such application of mind. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker, to the controversy in question and the decision arrived at. Reason and application of mind are impregnable for an order to sustain the scrutiny of law, be it administrative or quasi judicial. Reasons in every circumstance need not be elaborate, but nevertheless should bear application of mind. The case at hand and the order impugned will have to be tested on the anvil of the mandate of the statute, the intent behind its enactment and the rule of application of mind. 20. The afore-narrated facts and events are not in dispute. Reasons in every circumstance need not be elaborate, but nevertheless should bear application of mind. The case at hand and the order impugned will have to be tested on the anvil of the mandate of the statute, the intent behind its enactment and the rule of application of mind. 20. The afore-narrated facts and events are not in dispute. Government of Karnataka had issued a general circular through the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms directing all departments that they should not indiscriminately refer cases in the first instance to the ACB where allegations are made against the officials. Specific directions were given in the general circular to the departments for internal scrutiny of allegations and take necessary permission from the competent authority in the event reference to ACB is necessitated. The circular dated 24.08.2016 was issued by Government even before the amendment to the Prevention of Corruption Act introducing section 17A came about. The circular dated 24.08.2018 reads as follows: OTHER LANGUAGE The case of the petitioners ought to have been at least considered in terms of the Circular. 21. The complainant-Smt. M.H. Vijayalakshmi lodges three complaints simultaneously to three different authorities viz., first one to the 1st respondent-Government; the second one to the Karnataka Lokayukta and the third one to the ACB. On receipt of the complaint, the Lokayukta takes the inquiry and submits its report on 21.06.2019 holding that the allegations made by Smt.Vijayalakshmi against the petitioners are unsubstantiated, general in nature and without any documentary proof. This report is during the pendency of the other two complaints -one before the Government and the other before the ACB. 22. On the complaint pending before the Government, the Hon'ble Chief Minister issues a general direction on 07.09.2019 to conduct a state-wide enquiry into the irregularities in the implementation of Krishi Bhagya Scheme between the years 2014 and 2018. The complainant, feeling victorious after the State-wide enquiry that was ordered by the Hon'ble Chief Minister, communicates a letter to the competent authority seeking withdrawal of the complaint that was given to the ACB. The withdrawal of the complaint reads as follows: OTHER LANGUAGE The withdrawal of the complaint was filed stating to the effect that the complainant was satisfied with the action of Hon'ble Chief Minister directing State-wide enquiry. 23. The withdrawal of the complaint reads as follows: OTHER LANGUAGE The withdrawal of the complaint was filed stating to the effect that the complainant was satisfied with the action of Hon'ble Chief Minister directing State-wide enquiry. 23. Based upon the direction of the Hon'ble Chief Minister an Enquiry Committee was constituted and a comprehensive enquiry report was filed by the Enquiry Committee which also contained a report pertaining to the implementation of Krishi Bhagya Scheme in Gulbarga District that there was no irregularity committed by the officers. Therefore, the petitioners were tacitly exonerated by the Enquiry Committee. 24. During the pendency of consideration of the report submitted by the Enquiry Commission to the Hon'ble Chief Minister, the ADGP of the ACB, based on an earlier complaint given by the complainant-Smt. Vijayalakshmi who had unequivocally withdrawn her complaint and notwithstanding such withdrawal, communicates a letter to the 1st respondent forwarding the complaint and seeking previous permission/ approval as obtaining under Section 17A of the Act read with the General Circular dated 14.03.2016 (supra). 25. On the communication dated 19.10.2020, the competent authority grants prior permission/approval as obtaining under Section 17A of the Act on 3.02.2021 reading as follows:- OTHER LANGUAGE A cursory perusal at the order dated 3.02.2021 granting prior approval/permission for commencement of any of the three contingencies narrated hereinabove unmistakably reveals that it bears no application of mind. The complaint itself was withdrawn by the complainant when the Hon'ble Chief Minister directed State-wide enquiry which had also submitted its report on 23.01.2020 exonerating the officials including the petitioners and the letter of permission was sought after 9 months of submission of the report by the Enquiry Committee which was constituted by the Hon'ble Chief Minister. Without looking into any of the facts narrated hereinabove, an order under Section 17A is passed which is cryptic, bald and absolutely laconic and cannot stand the scrutiny of law 26. The formation of opinion by the statutory authority while granting prior permission under Section 17A should reflect application of mind with reference to the material available on record. The provision is akin to the recording of reasons while granting prior permission under Section 19 of the Act. The bedrock of these provisions are to avoid or discourage malicious and vexatious prosecutions. The provision is akin to the recording of reasons while granting prior permission under Section 19 of the Act. The bedrock of these provisions are to avoid or discourage malicious and vexatious prosecutions. In the teeth of the afore-narrated facts, the order granting prior approval, impugned in the writ petition, would, without a shadow of a doubt result in a vexatious prosecution against the petitioners. The order impugned falls foul of the intent and purport of Section 17A. Therefore, the order impugned loses its legal legs to stand as it is ex-facie illegal. 27. In terms of the narrative hereinabove what remains to be considered is whether the matter will have to be remitted back to the hands of the competent authority to reconsider the order of prior approval by recording cogent reasons. But, a subsequent development to the order impugned would hold the hands of this Court to submit the petitioners to a further rigmarole of proceedings. The Government in the Department of Agriculture has issued a communication on 1.03.2021 accepting the report of the Inquiry Committee constituted by the Hon'ble Chief Minister dated 23.01.2020 and closing the proceedings on all concerned. The communication dated 01.03.2021 reads as follows:- OTHER LANGUAGE Therefore, when Government itself has accepted the report and closed all the proceedings against all concerned concerning Krishi Bhagya Scheme for the years 2014-15 to 2017-18 during which the petitioners were also functioning at Gulbarga, it would be unjust to remit the matter back to the competent authority to reconsider the matter, but it cannot preclude the Government in taking any action in the event it becomes necessary in accordance with law, which would not become a tool of harassment against the petitioners. 28. For the praefatus reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) The order dated 03.02.2021 passed by respondent No.1 is quashed. (iii) The State Government will have the liberty to institute proceedings in accordance with law bearing in mind the General Circular dated 14.03.2016, the communication dated 01.03.2021 wherein the proceedings against all the officers concerning Krishi Bhagya Scheme were closed with reasons to be recorded in writing and not to use the liberty granted as a tool to harass the petitioners by setting the criminal law in motion sans substance.