ORDER : The case of the petitioner is as follows: 2. The petitioner had filed the complaint against the 4th respondent on the ground that the 4th respondent sought a bribe of Rs.20,000/- to see that no action was taken against the petitioner while he was working as the Chief Executive of large Size Cooperative Society, Pedapadu, West Godavari District. A trap is said to have been conducted against the 4th respondent, on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner and Crime No.12/RCT-EWG/2014 dated 02.08.2014 was also registered under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. After the successful trap of the 4th respondent, further investigation was taken up and sanctioning prosecution of the 4th respondent was also sought. At that stage, the case which had been filed before the A.C.B Court at Vijayawada had been transferred to the A.C.B Court, Rajamahendravaram and G.O.Ms.No.9 Agriculture and Cooperation (VIG.II) Department, dated 01.02.2017 was issued, sanctioning prosecution of the 4th respondent under various provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Thereafter, cognizance of the case was taken and numbered as C.C.No.116 of 2018. 3. It is further stated that even before sanction had been granted on 01.02.2017, the Vigilance Commissioner by his letter dated 24.06.2016 had informed the Special Chief Secretary to the Government that the matter had been reexamined, on account of various representations of the 4th respondent and an opinion had formed that the preponderance of evidence would not stand judicial scrutiny and therefore, it would be appropriate to initiate departmental proceedings, against the 4th respondent instead of prosecution. 4. While the case was pending before the Special Court, the 4th respondent is said to have submitted a representation on 19.06.2019 to withdraw the prosecution. On this basis, G.O.Ms.No.54 Agricultural and Cooperation (Vig-II) Department dated 14.04.2020 had been issued by the Government directing the Director General of A.C.B. to issue necessary instructions to the Public Prosecutor to withdraw the prosecution, against the 4th respondent. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said G.O.Ms.No.54 dated 14.04.2020, has approached this Court, by way of the present writ petition contending that the Government having accorded permission for prosecution of the 4th respondent cannot resile from that decision and direct withdrawal of the case against the 4th respondent. 5. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said G.O.Ms.No.54 dated 14.04.2020, has approached this Court, by way of the present writ petition contending that the Government having accorded permission for prosecution of the 4th respondent cannot resile from that decision and direct withdrawal of the case against the 4th respondent. 5. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit in which it is stated that the Vigilance Commissioner, at the very inception of the case, had issued a Memo dated 20.09.2016, calling for departmental action under Rule 20 of the A.P.C.S.(CC&A) Rules 1991 inspite of which the trial Court passed an order dated 29.08.2016 insisting that the prosecution should obtain sanction from the Government to prosecute the 4th respondent and the same had been challenged in W.P.No.3761 of 2017. Even while, the challenge to the orders of the trial Court were pending, the Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.9 Agricultural and Cooperation (VIG-II) Department, dated 01.02.2017 granting sanction for prosecution, contrary to the earlier Memo of 20.09.2016. The 4th respondent contends that the validity of G.O.Ms.No.9 dated 01.02.2017 has also been challenged by the 4th respondent in W.P.No.4668 of 2017 and the same is still pending before this Court. It is further stated that this Court had also granted interim suspension of G.O.Ms.No.9, dated 01.02.2017 by order dated 10.02.2017 in W.P.M.P.No.5661 of 2017. 6. Sri P.Gangaiah Naidu learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the 4th respondent would submit that in view of Memo bearing No.6719/Vig.II(2)/2014 dated 20.09.2016, the Government ought not to have issued G.O.Ms.No.9 dated 01.02.2017 and that the Government had corrected this mistake, by issuing G.O.Ms.No.54 Agricultural and Cooperation (Vig-II) Department dated 14.04.2020 directing the withdrawal of the prosecution of the 4th respondent. He relies upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan vs. State of Gujarat, (1997) 7 SCC 622 : (1997) SCC (Cri) 1120 to contend that the Court while exercising a jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not replace the opinion of the authority with the opinion of the Court and the scope of the writ petition would be restricted to examining whether the decision has been taken in a proper manner or not. He further relied on this judgment to contend that sanction for prosecution granted, without application of mind, by the sanctioning authority, even if it is in pursuance of a direction of the Court, would have to be set aside unless it is shown that the said order has been passed in an appropriate manner after application of mind. 7. Sri P.Gangaiah Naidu, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that the Memo dated 20.09.2016 very clearly set out the lacuna in the case against the 4th respondent and the said report clearly required prosecution to be dropped and initiation of departmental action against the 4th respondent. In the circumstances, the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.9 dated 01.02.2017 is a clear case of non application of mind and an order passed due to pressure exerted by the trial Court. He would further submit that this mistake had been corrected by G.O.Ms.No.54 dated 14.04.2020 and as such, the said order does not require interference. 8. Sri P.R.K.Amarendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Government did not have the authority to review G.O.Ms.No.9 dated 01.02.2017 or withdraw from prosecution after grant of sanction. He relies upon a judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of M.Veeraiah Chowdary vs. The State of A.P and Ors.,, 2003(1) ALD Cri 421:2003 CriLJ 1896 and an unreported judgment of a learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh dated 05.02.2015 in the case of Simon vs. The State of A.P. (Criminal Revision Case No.452 of 2008) to contend that the State does not have the power to withdraw from the prosecution after sanction of prosecution had been given. 9. The case of the petitioner is that once sanction of prosecution had been granted, by way of G.O.Ms.No.9 dated 01.02.2017, the State did not have any power to review or withdraw the said G.O by way of another G.O. Consequently, G.O.Ms.No.54 dated 14.04.2020 is without authority of law and in violation of the decision of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh. 10. 10. On the other hand, the contention of the 4th respondent is that the first decision taken in the matter was the opinion by the Vigilance Commissioner, by way of a Memo dated 20.09.2016 holding that the prosecution of the 4th respondent under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act would fail on account of the Pre-ponderance of evidence and it would be more appropriate to initiate departmental action against the 4th respondent. This initial opinion could not have been changed, on account of pressure exerted by the trial Court and consequently, G.O.Ms.No.9 dated 01.02.2017 itself is bad. The correction of this error by issuing G.O.Ms.No.54 dated 14.04.2020 cannot be faulted. 11. A learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in M.Veeraiah Chowdary vs. The State of A.P and Ors., while considering a similar case had held that once sanction of prosecution had been granted, the Government would not have power or jurisdiction to issue orders withdrawing permission accorded under Section 19(1) of the Prevention of the Corruption Act. The learned Single Judge also took the view that the authority to decide whether the prosecution should withdraw from the case would vest with the public prosecutor and as such, the Government cannot take any such decision. This Judgment was followed by another learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in similar circumstance. The learned Judge, following the earlier decision cited above, had taken the view that once a sanction is accorded to prosecute a public servant, the same cannot be withdrawn by exercising powers under either Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act or under Section 21 of the Andhra Pradesh General Clauses Act or Section 15 of the Andhra Pradesh General Clauses Act. In view of the authoritative pronouncements of the two learned Single Judges, this Court is bound by this proposition of law and must accordingly hold that G.O.Ms.No.54 dated 14.04.2020 would have to fail and the writ petition would have to be allowed accordingly. 12. In view of the authoritative pronouncements of the two learned Single Judges, this Court is bound by this proposition of law and must accordingly hold that G.O.Ms.No.54 dated 14.04.2020 would have to fail and the writ petition would have to be allowed accordingly. 12. Before parting with the case, this Court would also place on record that this Judgment is on the basis of the Judgments of the two learned Single Judges and the issues raised by the 4th respondent in W.P.Nos.4668 of 2017 and W.P.No.3761 of 2017 are not being considered by this Court and it would be open to the 4th respondent to raise and press the issues raised by him in the above two writ petitions without reference to this case. 13. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.