JUDGMENT : Saroj Yadav, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying the following reliefs : "(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order of sanction of prosecution dated 18.06.2007, passed against the petitioner, by the opposite party no. 2, contained as Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition. (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the Govt. Order dated 15.05.2007 by which the opposite party no. 1 has directed the opposite party no. 2/competent authority to grant sanction for prosecution against individuals in Investigation Case No.12/2000 and which finally resulted in passing of impugned order." 2. Heard Shri A.K. Bajpai, assisted by Ms. Tejaswani Bajpai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ajai Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in Investigation Case No.12 of 2000 sanction for prosecution was previously refused by the Opposite Party No. 2 vide order dated 27.03.2006. Thereafter, the Opposite Party No. 2-Successor-in-Office had no authority in law to supersede or review the order passed by the Predecessor-in-Office. He further submitted that impugned order dated 18.06.2007 is contrary to law as on its face, which indicates that same has been passed on the direction of the Opposite Party No. 1. The subsequent authority i.e. Successor-in-Office did not even had the courage to distinguish his view from the Predecessor-in-Office. The Successor-in-Office has grossly misused his position and discretion by granting sanction of prosecution contrary to the Order dated 27.03.2006 issued by the Predecessor-in-Office. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following case laws:- (i) State of H.P. Versus Nishant Sareen, (2010) 14 SCC 527 ; (ii) Gopikant Choudhary Versus State of Bihar and others, (2009) 9 SCC 53; (iii) Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan Versus State of Gujarat, (1997) 7 SCC 622 ; (iv) R.S. Nayak Versus A.R. Antulay, (1984) 2 SCC 183 . 4. To the contrary, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner but could not dispute the facts and arguments placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. To the contrary, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner but could not dispute the facts and arguments placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party, wherein it has been stated that the petitioner, the then Manager (Gramodyog), Office of U.P. Khadi & Village Industries Board, Kanpur misused his Office and was in collusion with Mr. Firoz Alam, the Secretary of M/s Sani Gramodyog Sansthan, Jajmau, Kanpur. The petitioner fully knowing that Mr. Firoz Alam, the Secretary of the above said Sansthan has filed forged and fabricated papers of Guarantor Raja Hasan and Babu relating to land and he has even not constructed the workshop. The Economic Offences Wing (E.O.W) found the petitioner guilty for illegalities and the State Government vide Order No. 553/59-1-2007 dated 15.05.2007 sent the directions relating to permission for granting prosecution sanction with reference to Criminal Investigation No. 12/2000 and in pursuance of the State Government's order prosecution sanction has been given vide Order No. 2105-10 dated 18.06.2007.Therefore, the present writ petition may be dismissed. 5. Considered the arguments of rival sides and perused the record and the case law cited. 6. It is not denied in the counter affidavit that previously Predecessor-in-Office had refused the prosecution sanction vide order dated 27.03.2006 and subsequently Successor-in-Office had granted prosecution sanction vide impugned order dated 18.06.2007. In the counter affidavit, it has been categorically stated that in pursuance of the State Government's order prosecution sanction has been given vide Order No. 2105-10 dated 18.06.2007. 7. It is settled principle of law that sanctioning authority should exercise its authority and discretion independently under the authority of his own Office and not under the directions given by some other authority. In Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan Versus State of Gujarat (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held the sanction order to be bad for the reason that sanction was issued by the authority under the directions of the High Court. 8. In Gopikant Choudhary Versus State of Bihar and others (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court while setting aside the subsequent sanction order after refusal once has observed as under:- "We find from the file that was produced that there has been no application of mind when the subsequent order was passed in the year 1997. 8. In Gopikant Choudhary Versus State of Bihar and others (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court while setting aside the subsequent sanction order after refusal once has observed as under:- "We find from the file that was produced that there has been no application of mind when the subsequent order was passed in the year 1997. It further appears that between the order refusing to sanction and the order that was passed in 1997, the investigating agency had not collected any fresh materials requiring a fresh look at the earlier order. It is also apparent that the alleged excess amount said to have been paid on account of non-performance of the duty by the appellant is to the tune of Rs.2750/- and, therefore, under the Rules of Business, the file pertaining to sanction would have been finally dealt with by the Law Minister and, in fact, he had done so. In this view of the matter, neither was there any necessity for the authorities concerned to place the file before the Chief Minister nor had the Chief Minister any occasion to reconsider the matter and pass fresh order sanctioning prosecution particularly when taking into account the loss sustained to the exchequer to the tune of Rs.2750. That apart, the person concerned has already retired in the year 1994 and it is unthinkable that for a loss of Rs.2750 the State would pursue the proceedings against such person. In this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order of sanction dated 10.12.1997 passed by the Chief Minister for prosecuting the appellant." 9. Again in State of H.P. Versus Nishant Sareen (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court rehashed the same principle as laid down in Gopikant Choudhary Versus State of Bihar and others (Supra), and made impermissible the subsequent sanction on the same material. 10. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2, it has not been mentioned that any fresh material was brought on record by the Investigating Agency and that was considered and prosecution sanction was granted by the Successor-in-Office. Even in the impugned order dated 18.06.2007 there is no mention that any fresh material was submitted or considered by the sanctioning authority. Hence the present writ petition deserves to be allowed. 11. In the result, the present writ petition succeeds and the same stands allowed. Even in the impugned order dated 18.06.2007 there is no mention that any fresh material was submitted or considered by the sanctioning authority. Hence the present writ petition deserves to be allowed. 11. In the result, the present writ petition succeeds and the same stands allowed. The impugned order of sanction of prosecution dated 18.06.2007, passed against the petitioner, by the opposite party no. 2, is hereby quashed. 12. No order as to costs.