JUDGMENT : ROBIN PHUKAN, J. 1. Heard Mr. T.T. Tara, learned counsel for the petitioners and also heard Mr. S. Tapin, learned Senior Govt. Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as well as Mr. O. Pada, learned Special PP for respondent No. 3. 2. It is submitted at the Bar that all these 19 (nineteen) petitions have arisen out of the same prosecution order, vide Memo No. SPWD-290/2014, dated 16.03.2018, and as such, all these criminal petitions may be disposed of by a common judgment and order. Accordingly, it is proposed to dispose of all these 19 (nineteen) criminal petitions by this common judgment and order. 3. In these applications, under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners have put to challenge the prosecution sanction order, vide Memo No. SPWD-290/2014 dated 16.03.2018, by which sanction is accorded to prosecute them in connection with Yazali P.S. Case No. 05/2011. 4. The factual background, leading to filing of theese applications, is briefly stated as under: “On 29.04.2011, Shri J.T. Takam of Yazali lodged one complaint with the Yazali Police Station alleging large scale misuse of fund allocated for construction of road: (a) C/o road from Jop to Silsong; (b) C/o road at KVK Yachuli and (c) C/o road from Loth to Chambang for an amount of Rs. 3569.02/- lakhs. Upon the said complaint Yazali P.S. Case No. 05/2011, dated 11.07.2011 has been registered under Section 409 IPC, read with Section 13 (1) (c) (d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After registration, the case was transferred to the SIC (Vigilance), Itanagar, pursuant to an order of Dy. Inspector General of Police, Vide No. PHQ/CR/GC/ZIRO-05/2011, dated 11.07.2011 and the investigation was carried out, which culminated in submission of Charge-Sheet, dated 14.10.2015, before the learned Special Court (PCA) Yupia in PCA Case No. 01/2016 (YPA) against the 21 officials of the P.W.D. Yazali and Ziro Sub-Division and the contractors, including the present petitioners, who were working in different capacities in PWD, Ziro Division, at the relevant time, under Section 120(B)/409/420 IPC and Section 13 (1) (c) (d) and 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 without, however, obtaining prosecution sanction against the petitioners.” 4.1. Thereafter, the learned Court below had issued summon to the petitioners/accused persons, and on their appearance, and after hearing both sides, the learned Court below has discharged all the accused persons, including the present petitioners, on the ground of absence of prosecution sanction, and in absence of materials against the accused vide order, dated 21.12.2017. 4.2. Thereafter, the SIC (Vigilance) had challenged the order, dated 21.12.2017, by filing a Criminal Revision Petition No. 05 (AP) 2018, before this Court and the same was disposed of on 22.06.2021 and the impugned order, dated 21.12.2017, passed by the learned Special Judge (PCA), Yupia was set aside and direction was issued to the learned court below to proceed with the trial. It is to be noted here that during pendency of the said revision petition before this Court, the SIC (Vigilance) had filed one additional affidavit before this Court with a prayer to bring on record the subsequent filing of supplementary Charge-Sheet in SIC (Vigilance) P.S. Case No. 05/2011, in the Criminal revision petition, on 21.03.2018, with the prosecution sanction granted by the competent authority vide letter, dated 21.02.2018, vide Memo No. SPWD-290/2014. 5. Then, being highly aggrieved by the aforesaid prosecution sanction order, dated 16.03.2018, the present 19 (nineteen) petitioners have preferred these 19 (nineteen) criminal petitions challenging the order, dated 16.03.2018 Vide Memo No. SPWD-290/2014 on the following grounds: (i) That, the sanction was granted by the State respondent without application of mind and discretion vested it in accordance with law as it has no power to review its earlier rejection order. (ii) That, the sanctioning authority i.e. PWD, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh had denied prosecution sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act vide letter, dated 31.03.2015 vide Memo No. SPWD-290/2014/631 by stating that ‘the materials on record and relied on by the Superintendent of Police, SIC, is insufficient as the said report does not point out or discusses the culpability and involvement of PWD officers in the furtherance of the prosecution cases against whom cases have been registered’ and as such, the sanction order, dated 16.03.2018 is not sustainable. (iii) That, while granting prosecution sanction vide order, dated 16.03.2018, no fresh materials were produced by the SIC (Vigilance) before the sanctioning authority. (iii) That, while granting prosecution sanction vide order, dated 16.03.2018, no fresh materials were produced by the SIC (Vigilance) before the sanctioning authority. (iv) That, the decision to accord prosecution sanction vide order, dated 16.03.2018, was taken in arbitrary and mechanical manner and as desired by the learned Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh and the authority has considered: (a) The enquiry report submitted by Mr. Kuru Cera, Chief Engineer. (b) The report of third party monitoring team. (c) The report of technical board under Chairmanship of Shri K. Wage, CE (C.T. & Vig.) (d) The report of technical board under the Chairmanship of Shri A.C. Baruah, ADC, Yachuli, which were already considered by the authority. (v) That, the Law Department in its view has advised before obtaining prosecution sanction of competent authority to consider the opinion/view of the learned Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh but the same appears to not obtained by the sanctioning authority. (vi) That, the sanctioning authority has accorded sanction before the draft was finally approved by the Commissioner, PWD, which is apparent from the file note, dated 28.03.2018 (Annexure-13 series). (vii) That, the sanctioning authority has accorded sanction referring to PIL No. 47/2012 where no such order has been directed to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh to accord prosecution sanction. (viii) That, the sanction granted to the petitioners is against the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Nishant Sareen, (2010) 14 SCC 527 and that from different file noting, it appears that the prosecution sanction vide order, dated 16.03.2018 and culminated on 28.03.2018 and it was done hurriedly without application of mind. (ix) That, the prosecution sanction was granted without affording any opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and that the sanction was granted with mala-fide intention and consideration of extraneous reasons and therefore, it is contended to allow the petition. 6. The respondent No. 2 has submitted affidavit-in-opposition denying the averments made by the petitioners in their petitions. It is stated that initially Public Works Department, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh has denied the prosecution sanction against the petitioners and other officers on the following grounds: “On receipt of the requisition of Superintendent of Police SIC (Vigilance) seeking issuance of prosecution sanction against the officers of PWD vide Letter No. SIC/VIG/PRO: SAN/17/05-06, dated 11.11.2014. It is stated that initially Public Works Department, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh has denied the prosecution sanction against the petitioners and other officers on the following grounds: “On receipt of the requisition of Superintendent of Police SIC (Vigilance) seeking issuance of prosecution sanction against the officers of PWD vide Letter No. SIC/VIG/PRO: SAN/17/05-06, dated 11.11.2014. The matter was examined and found that there were no sufficient documentary evidences, supporting for issue of prosecution sanction as per guidelines. The proposal was referred to Law Department for advice and the Law Department, after thorough examination of all records in file and reasoning given by the Superintendent of Police (Vig.) while seeking prosecution sanction against 15 officers observed that no specific gist of allegations/findings have been recorded independently against all officers and their involvement as a conspirator in commission of criminal offence that has been registered under Section 409 IPC read with Section 13 (1) (c) (d) and 13 (2) of PC Act, 1988. The materials on records and relied upon by Superintendent of Police, SIC (Vigilance) is insufficient for issuance of prosecution sanction which may not withstand the judicial scrutiny, if the same is challenged in the Court of law and as such, it was advised to rectify the defects.” 6.1. Thereafter, the Superintendent of Police (SIC) (Vig.) was communicated the advice of Law Department with a request to rectify the defects vide office letter No. SPWD-290/2014/631, dated 31.03.2015. Thereafter, another letter on 22.12.2016 was received from Superintendent of Police and the earlier advice was reiterated vide letter dated 31.03.2016. Again 3rd letter on the same subject was received from Superintendent of Police, SIC (Vig.) dated 13.04.2017 and no supporting documents, except however, some inquiry reports of Chief Engineer, PWD and District Administration, Lower Subansiri, Ziro, and as the SIC (Vig.) failed to furnish specific gist of allegation/findings against the officers independently and their involvement as a conspirator in the commission of the offence, sanction was not granted in view of guidelines by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Ashok Kumar Agarwal in Criminal Appeal No. 1388 of 2013. 6.2. 6.2. Thereafter, on 09.03.2018, the Superintendent of Police (SIC) (Vig.) submitted a letter with details of background of the case with the same Inquiry reports along with the draft prosecution sanction and some supporting documents against 21 persons and thereafter, prosecution sanction was granted against 21 Engineers, including the present petitioners, vide office Order No. SPWD-290/2014, dated 16.03.2018, and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition. 7. The respondent No. 3/Superintendent of Police, SIC (Vigilance) also filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that though prosecution sanction was refused earlier by the sanctioning authority vide letter No. SPWD-209/2014/631, dated 31.03.2015, SPWD-290/2014/187-88, dated 08.02.2017, and SPWD-290/2014/289-90, dated 27.02.2018, on the ground that the materials on record and the reasoning given by the Superintendent of Police, while seeking issuance of prosecution sanction against the officers of PWD, as per name indicated in the file, it is seen that no specific findings was recorded independently against all the accused officers and their involvement as conspirator in the commission of the offence. However, sanctioning authority has accorded sanction, vide Memo No. SPWD-290/2014, dated 16.03.2018. When the Superintendent of Police, SIC (Vig.) as per guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, had submitted a letter with details of background of the case with the Inquiry Reports, copy of the FIR, statements of witnesses, seizure list, copy of Charge-Sheet and some supporting documents against 21 persons. It is also stated that the earlier sanction was refused as there was no specific allegation/ findings has not been indicated against 21 officers and therefore, the Superintendent of Police, SIC (Vig.) was directed to rectify the defects as per advice of the Law Department and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition. 8. Mr. T.T. Tara, learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that the charge sheet was submitted before the court of learned Special Judge (PCA), Yupia without the prosecution sanction. Thereafter, the learned Special Judge (PCA), Yupia after hearing the parties discharged all the accused under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. Mr. Tara further submitted that, thereafter, the Superintendent of Police, SIC (Vigilance), Itanagar approach the sanctioning authority i.e. the Commissioner, PWD, Government of Arunachal Pradesh for according prosecution sanction vide letter, dated 11.11.2014, but the prosecution sanction was denied on that occasion vide Letter No. SPWA-290/2014/631, dated 31.03.2015. Tara further submitted that, thereafter, the Superintendent of Police, SIC (Vigilance), Itanagar approach the sanctioning authority i.e. the Commissioner, PWD, Government of Arunachal Pradesh for according prosecution sanction vide letter, dated 11.11.2014, but the prosecution sanction was denied on that occasion vide Letter No. SPWA-290/2014/631, dated 31.03.2015. Thereafter, second time, the Superintendent of Police, SIC (Vigilance), Itanagar approach the sanctioning authority for according prosecution sanction to the accused persons vide letter, dated 22.12.2016, but, on the said occasion also, the sanctioning authority has denied prosecution sanction vide letter No. SPWD-290/2014/187-88, dated 08.02.2017. Thereafter, again the Superintendent of Police, SIC (Vigilance), Itanagar approach the sanctioning authority for according prosecution sanction vide letter, dated 13.04.2017, but this time also the Commissioner, PWD, who is the sanctioning authority has declined the prosecution sanction vide Letter No. SPWD-209/2014/289-90, dated 27.02.2018. It is further submitted that thereafter, again, on 05.03.2018, the Superintendent of Police, SIC (Vigilance), Itanagar approach the sanctioning authority for according prosecution sanction based upon the same materials and on consideration of which, earlier, on three occasions the prosecution sanction was denied. But, this time, the sanctioning authority has accorded prosecution sanction to prosecute the petitioners of this case along with 20 others on 16.03.2018, vide Memo No. SPWD-290/2014. Mr. Tara, further submitted that granting of prosecution sanction by the sanctioning authority upon the same material is prima-facie illegal and the same is contravention of the guidelines issued by the Central Vigilance Commission, which are applicable to the State of Arunachal Pradesh and also the same are against the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nishant Sareen (supra). Therefore, the petitioners approach this Court for quashing the prosecution sanction granted to the Superintendent of Police, SIC (Vigilance), Itanagar to prosecute him along with 20 others. Mr. Tara, also taking this court through various file noting of the relevant files, obtained under RTI Act, has submitted that the same goes to shows that sanction was rejected and also goes to show the extent of irregularity and manipulation that had been indulged in while granting prosecution sanction by the department. 9. On the other hand, Mr. S. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 9. On the other hand, Mr. S. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, submits that the petitioners have misrepresented the fact in the Court by stating that the prosecution sanction was rejected on three occasions, but, the same were neither denied nor rejected, but, the Superintendent of Police, SIC (Vigilance), Itanagar was asked to rectify the defects noticed therein. Taking this court through the Annexures-3, 5 and 7, Mr. Tapin has submits that nowhere in the letters, issued to the Superintendent of Police, SIC (Vigilance), Itanagar, the PWD department has used the word rejected. But, the S.P. SIC (Vigilance), was asked to rectify the defects in the letters as the same failed to reveals the culpability and involvement of PWD Officers and the individual role played by them in committing the offence. Mr. Tapin further submits that against the discharged order of the learned Special Judge, Yupia, the SIC (Vigilance) has preferred one Criminal Revision Petition before this Court, being Criminal Revision Petition No. 05 (AP)/2018 and pending disposal of the said petition, the SIC (Vigilance) has submitted supplementary charge sheet along with prosecution sanction before this Court and thereafter, this Court vide order, dated 22.06.2021, while disposing of the Criminal Revision Petition No. 05 (AP)/2018, has directed the learned Special Judge, Yupia to proceed with the trial of the case with right earnest and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible. Mr. S. Tapin further submits that the ratio laid down in the case of Nishant Sareen (supra) is not applicable here in this case as the facts and circumstance herein this case is different from the referred case law. It is therefore, contended to dismiss the petition. 10. On the other hand, Mr. O. Pada, learned Special Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent No. 3, subscribes the submission of Mr. Tapin, the learned Sr. Govt. Advocate. Mr. Pada, referring to various communication between the Govt. It is therefore, contended to dismiss the petition. 10. On the other hand, Mr. O. Pada, learned Special Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent No. 3, subscribes the submission of Mr. Tapin, the learned Sr. Govt. Advocate. Mr. Pada, referring to various communication between the Govt. and the SIC (Vigilance), submits that prosecution sanction was never rejected at any point of time and the Superintendent, SIC (Vigilance) was asked to rectify the defects as no specific gist of allegations/findings have been recorded independently against all officers and their involvement as a conspirator in commission of criminal offence and in the event of issuance of such prosecution sanction the same may not withstand the judicial scrutiny, if the same is challenged in the Court of law. Mr. Pada further submits that in respect of cases under PC Act, no stay can be granted in view of the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited and Another vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2018) 16 SCC 299 and therefore, Mr. Pada, learned Special Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the petition. 11. Having heard the submission of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petitions and the documents enclosed therewith and also the affidavit-in-opposition submitted by respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 3. Also I have carefully gone through the case laws referred by Mr. T.T. Tara, learned counsel for the petitioners. It appears that the case of the petitioners rest on a narrow campus. This court has to found out the answer to the question as to whether the sanctioning authority has rejected the prosecution sanction earlier and later on, based upon the same materials granted sanction to prosecute the petitioner. The law, in this regard is well settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nishant Sareen (supra). In the said case, in paragraph No. 12 and 13, it has been held that: “12. It is true that the Government in the matter of grant or refusal to grant sanction exercises statutory power and that would not mean that power once exercised cannot be exercised again or at a subsequent stage in the absence of express power of review in no circumstance whatsoever. The power of review, however, is not unbridled or unrestricted. It is true that the Government in the matter of grant or refusal to grant sanction exercises statutory power and that would not mean that power once exercised cannot be exercised again or at a subsequent stage in the absence of express power of review in no circumstance whatsoever. The power of review, however, is not unbridled or unrestricted. It seems to us sound principle to follow that once the statutory power under Section 19 of the 1988 Act or Section 197 of the Code has been exercised by the Government or the competent authority, as the case may be, it is not permissible for the sanctioning authority to review or reconsider the matter on the same materials again. It is so because unrestricted power of review may not bring finality to such exercise and on change of the Government or change of the person authorised to exercise power of sanction, the matter concerning sanction may be reopened by such authority for the reasons best known to it and a different order may be passed. The opinion on the same materials, thus, may keep on changing and there may not be any end to such statutory exercise. In our opinion, a change of opinion per se on the same materials cannot be a ground for reviewing or reconsidering the earlier order refusing to grant sanction. However, in a case where fresh materials have been collected by the investigating agency subsequent to the earlier order and placed before the sanctioning authority and on that basis, the matter is reconsidered by the sanctioning authority and in light of the fresh materials an opinion is formed that sanction to prosecute the public servant may be granted, there may not be any impediment to adopt such course. 13. Insofar as the present case is concerned, it is not even the case of the appellant that fresh materials were collected by the investigating agency and placed before the sanctioning authority for reconsideration and/or for review of the earlier order refusing to grant sanction. As a matter of fact, from the perusal of the subsequent order dated March 15, 2008 it is clear that on the same materials, the sanctioning authority has changed its opinion and ordered sanction to prosecute the respondent which, in our opinion, is clearly impermissible.” 12. As a matter of fact, from the perusal of the subsequent order dated March 15, 2008 it is clear that on the same materials, the sanctioning authority has changed its opinion and ordered sanction to prosecute the respondent which, in our opinion, is clearly impermissible.” 12. Again in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Ashok Kumar Agarwal in Criminal Appeal No. 1388 of 2013, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paragraph-13 laid down the legal proposition as under: “(a) The prosecution must send the entire relevant record to the sanctioning authority including the FIR, disclosure statements, statements of witnesses, recovery memos, draft charge-sheet and all other relevant material. The record so send should also contain the material/document, if any, which may tilt the balance in favour of the accused and on the basis of which, the competent authority may refuse sanction. (b) The authority itself has to do complete and conscious scrutiny of the whole record so produced by the prosecution independently applying its mind and taking into consideration all the relevant facts before grant of sanction while discharging its duty to give or withhold the sanction. (c) The power to grant sanction is to be exercised strictly keeping in mind the public interest and the protection available to the accused against whom the sanction is sought. (d) The order of sanction should make it evident that the authority had been aware of all relevant facts/materials and had applied its mind to all the relevant material. (e) In every individual case, the prosecution has to establish and satisfy the Court by leading evidence that the entire relevant facts had been placed before the sanctioning authority and the authority had applied its mind on the same and that the sanction had been granted in accordance with law.” 13. It appears that the Superintendent of Police has approached the sanctioning authority, i.e. the P.W.D. Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh to accord prosecution sanction to prosecute the petitioners. But, the Department has not accorded sanction and returned the same asking the SIC (Vigilance) to rectify the defects. The first such letter was issued on 11.11.2014 for according sanction to prosecute 15 officers and thereafter, on 10.11.2015 to prosecute 7 officers (Annexure-2 series). But, the same was returned vide Letter No. SPWD-290/2014/631, dated 31.03.2015 (Annexure-3). But, the Department has not accorded sanction and returned the same asking the SIC (Vigilance) to rectify the defects. The first such letter was issued on 11.11.2014 for according sanction to prosecute 15 officers and thereafter, on 10.11.2015 to prosecute 7 officers (Annexure-2 series). But, the same was returned vide Letter No. SPWD-290/2014/631, dated 31.03.2015 (Annexure-3). Thereafter again SIC (Vigilance) has approached the PWD Department on 22.12.2016 (Annexure-4) and the same was returned vide Letter No. SPWD-290/20148/187-88, dated 08.02.2017 (Annexure-5), thereafter again the SIC (Vigilance) has approached the PWD Department on 17.04.2-17 (Annexure-6) and the Department again returned the same vide letter No. SPWD-290/2014/289-90, dated 27.02.2018, (Annexure-7). Thereafter, on 05.03.2018, the PWD Department has requested the Superintendent of Police SIC (vigilance) vide letter No. SPWD-290/2104 (Annexure-8) to furnish adequate materials fixing culpability and involvement of the PWD Officials in question so as to consider the prosecution sanction. Thereafter, again the SIC (Vigilance) vide Letter No. 08.03.2018 (Annexure-10) has requested to accord prosecution sanction. And then the PWD Department, vide Memo No. SPWD-290/2014, dated 16.03.2018, accorded sanction to prosecute the petitioners in connection with Yazali P.S. Case No. 05/2011. 13.1. A careful perusal of the letters of the PWD Department, dated 31.03.2015 (Annexure-3), dated 08.02.2017 (Annexure-5), and dated 27.02.2018,(Annexure-7) reveals that the sanctioning authority, nowhere in the said letters, had mentioned that the prayer made by the Superintendent of Police, SIC (Vig.) was rejected. Rather, it appears from the said letters, that the Superintendent of Police, SIC (Vig.) was asked to follow the advice of the Law Department with a request to rectify the defects. Rather, vide its letter, dated 05.03.2018 (Annexure-8), the PWD Department has requested the Superintendent of Police, SIC (Vigilance) to furnish adequate materials fixing culpability and involvement of the PWD Officials in question so as to consider the prosecution sanction. Though Mr. T.T. Tara the learned counsel for the petitioners, referring some file noting, tried to impress upon this court that the sanctioning authority has rejected the earlier prayers of the SIC (Vigilance), and indulged in manipulation of facts, yet the cumulative result of a conjoint readings of all the letters of the PWD Department, as discussed here in above, left this court unimpressed by such a submission. As the prosecution sanction was not rejected earlier, according of prosecution sanction, based upon the same materials, does not arise. 13.2. As the prosecution sanction was not rejected earlier, according of prosecution sanction, based upon the same materials, does not arise. 13.2. It is to be noted here that Law Department, after going through all the records in the file and the reasoning given by the Superintendent of Police, SIC (Vig.) while seeking prosecution sanction against fifteen officers observed that no specific gist of allegation/finding have been recorded independently against all officers and their involvement as a conspirator in commission of criminal offence has registered under Section 409 IPC read with Section 13 (1) (c) (d) and 13 (2) of P.C. Act. The materials on record and relied on by the Superintendent of Police, SIC (Vig.) is insufficient for issuance of prosecution sanction which may not withstand the judicial scrutiny, if the same is challenged in the Court of law. As such it was advised to rectify the defects and the same advice was communicated in response to the letter of the Superintendent of Police, dated 22.12.2016 and 17.04.2017 and as the SIC (Vig.) could not furnish specific gist of allegation/findings against the officers independently and their involvement as conspirator in the commission of criminal offences has registered under Section 409 IPC read with Section 13 (1) (c) (d) and 13 (2) of P.C. Act, 1988, the prosecution sanction could not be issued by the PWD, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh from 11.11.2014 to 15.03.2018. 13.3. However, on 09.03.2018, the Superintendent of Police, SIC (Vigilance) submitted a letter with details of background of the case and the inquiry report, copy of the FIR along with draft prosecution sanction and some supporting documents against 21 persons and thereafter, having been satisfied, the respondent authority had granted prosecution sanction against 21 Engineers, vide office Order No. SPWD-290/2014, dated 16.03.2018. 14. Thus, having examined the facts and circumstance of the case in hand and also the submission advanced by Mr. T.T. Tara, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate as well as Mr. 14. Thus, having examined the facts and circumstance of the case in hand and also the submission advanced by Mr. T.T. Tara, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate as well as Mr. O. Pada, learned Special PP, SIC (Vig.) this Court is of the view that the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nishant Sareen (supra) is not applicable in all force to the facts and circumstances here in this case, as because in that case, the prosecution sanction was granted upon the same materials, based on which the earlier prosecution sanction was rejected. Mr. S. Tapin, learned Sr. Govt. Advocate and Mr. O. Pada, learned Special PP, SIC (Vig.) has rightly pointed this out in their argument. There is much force in the same and accordingly I record concurrence with the same. 15. Thus, I find that there is no material to suggest that the impugned sanction, so granted by the sanctioning authority, by following the guidelines laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Agarwal (supra), to prosecute the petitioners in Yazali P.S. Case No. 05/2011, suffers from any infirmity or irregularity, so as to interfere with the same, by invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 16. Though, Mr. T.T. Tara, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that there is no provision for submitting draft prosecution sanction by the SIC (Vig.) yet, these are technical matter which cannot vitiate the sanction here in this case. There is also no force in the submission of Mr. Tara, that the sanctioning authority had not applied its mind while granting prosecution sanction against the petitioners and that legal advice of learned Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh was not obtained. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the sanction was granted mechanically by the sanctioning authority. Moreover, there is no legal mandate to obtain legal advice of learned Advocate General and as such, failing to obtain legal advice would not vitiate the sanction granted. 17. In the result I find no merit in these 19 (nineteen) petitions, and accordingly, the same stand dismissed. The parties have to bear their own costs.