ORDER : 1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayer:- “A/-by an appropriate direction, appropriate the writ, impugned order of prosecution sanction dated 16.11.2018 (Annex.28) passed issued by the respondent No.2 may kindly be quashed and set-aside.” 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Patwari on 25.06.1979. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Inspector, Land Record on 24.10.1990, and he was given confirmation for the said post on 08.05.1995. Later, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Nayab Tehsildar on 30.08.2008 and then to the post of Tehsildar on 20.09.2013 which was confirmed vide order dated 01.04.2018. 3. The petitioner was transferred vide order dated 10.10.2016 from sub registrar Jodhpur-II to Tehsil Sojat, District Pali, as the name of the petitioner mentioned at S.No.96 of transfer order dated 10.10.2016 (Annex 7A). The petitioner was relieved on 13.10.2016 and thus on 14.10.2016 the petitioner was given posting in Tehsil Sojat as Tehsildar. 4. When the petitioner was posted in Tehsil Sojat, one Shri Rajmal Mewara filed a complaint against the petitioner before Anti Corruption Bureau Bhilwara-I stating therein that the driver of the petitioner demanded Rs10,000/-from the complainant Rajmal Mewara on 30.03.2016 when complainant requested the petitioner for not entering the name of one Babulal in the revenue record as khatedar pertaining to Khasra No. 1328 situated at Bagdinagar, Tehsil Sojat. The trap proceedings were conducted on 24.04.2018, thereafter the petitioner was arrested by the Anti Corruption Bureau, Bhilwara. On 25.04.2018 an FIR was lodged against the petitioner for offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) & 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988 (For short, ‘the Act of 1988’) and Section 120-B IPC. However the petitioner was enlarged on bail on 26.04.2018 by the competent court and he again joined duty on 26.04.2018 itself as he did not remain in custody for more than 48 hours. 5. The respondent authority, Board Of Revenue, Ajmer, Rajasthan suspended the petitioner on 27.04.2018 (Annex.12) on the basis of government circular dated 07.07.2010 and as per rule 13 of Rajasthan Civil services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules 1958. 6. 5. The respondent authority, Board Of Revenue, Ajmer, Rajasthan suspended the petitioner on 27.04.2018 (Annex.12) on the basis of government circular dated 07.07.2010 and as per rule 13 of Rajasthan Civil services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules 1958. 6. Aggrieved by the order dated 27.04.2018, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this court being SBCWP No. 11000/2018 wherein while issuing notices to the respondents, this court stayed the effect and operation of the order dated 27.04.2018 vide order dated 30.07.2018.(Annex.13) 7. In addition to that, on 23.02.2018 one Bajrang Das submitted an application before the petitioner (in capacity of Tehsildar) with regard to illegal conversion of 'doli' land which belonged to some known of the complainant, and thus on 24.03.2018 the petitioner submitted a report to SDO Sojat regarding illegal conversion. 8. Thereafter, in regard to the FIR filed against the petitioner, an investigation Report was made on 29.10.2018 by Anti corruption Bureau, Ajmer, Rajasthan, then, on the date of 12.11.2018 a show cause notice was issued by Board Of Revenue, Rajasthan Ajmer through Deputy Registrar (enquiry) Board Of Revenue, Rajasthan Ajmer, to the petitioner in connection with grant of prosecution sanction, to appear before respondent No.2 Board Of Revenue Rajasthan Ajmer. The petitioner submitted an application dated 13.11.2018 and 14.11.2018 that he has been given the charge of Assistant Returning Officer in election process thus the date of hearing be fixed after the elections are over, whereas the respondent No.2 sent a communication dated 14.11.2018 to the petitioner to be present before respondent authority in regard to prosecution sanction on 16.11.2018. Thus on 16.11.2018 prosecution sanction order was passed by respondent No.2, the sanctioning authority i.e. Chairman, Board of Revenue. 9. Petitioner being aggrieved of the order of prosecution sanction dated 16.11.2018 passed by respondent No.2, Board Of Revenue, Rajasthan Ajmer, filed the present petition. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been discharging his duties with utmost satisfaction and there has been no complaint against the petitioner in addition to that the service tenure of the petitioner is good and thus the entire service conduct from the year 1990 to 2018 of the petitioner must be considered before issuing prosecution sanction against the petitioner. He further submitted that the complainant filed a complaint against the petitioner stating the date of incident as 30.03.2016 whereas the petitioner joined on the post of Tehsildar Sojat in the month of October 2016 thus there is no scope for the petitioner to have demanded the amount of 10,000 from the complainant. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the allegation of demanding Rs 10,000 for not changing the mutation entry in favour of Babulal is baseless because there is no question of changing the mutation entry on the basis of unregistered document in favour of Babulal. Moreover, the complainant’s name i.e. Rajmal Mewara is already entered in the revenue record as a khatedar from the year 2012, vide mutation No. 1817 dated 21.05.2012, thus there is no scope of changing it in favour of Babulal by the petitioner. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that a suit between the complainant Rajmal Mewara and one Babulal is pending before Civil judge Sojat, District Pali for cancellation of registered sale deed and permanent injunction; and stay order has also been granted by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, Rajasthan thus it is not possible to change the mutation entry. He also submitted that the mutation entry is of village bagdi and the same is within the jurisdiction of Nayab Tehsildar, thus the petitioner has no jurisdiction of the village for which allegation was made on petitioner that he changed the mutation entry in favour of Babulal. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the Respondent no 4, Chairman of Board Of Revenue, has been transferred as an Additional secretary, department of administrative reforms and public grievances vide order dated 17.11.2018 and has thus been relieved from the post of Chairman Board Of Revenue vide order dated 04.12.2018. Thus, the respondent No 4 acted in malafide manner as the prosecution sanction against the petitioner has been issued in back date on 16.11.2018. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the copy of the prosecution sanction was not provided to the petitioner, moreover a caveat was filed by the respondents on 26.11.2018 before the coordinate bench of this Court against challenging of prosecution sanction by petitioner, thus the petitioner got the knowledge about the same and thus filed an RTI to get a copy of the prosecution sanction. 15.The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner applied for the copy of the proceedings of prosecution sanction where communication dated 29.10.2018 was sent by Anti Corruption Bureau, Ajmer to respondent No 2 Board Of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer while enclosing the draft of the prosecution sanction and ACB report, the prosecution sanction order issued by the Respondent No.4 is verbatim copy of the draft sanction prepared by Anti Corruption Bureau, which shows that the respondents have not applied its mind while issuing the prosecution sanction order. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Anti corruption Bureau neither supplied the record of the material collected during the investigation and statements recorded under section 161 crpc, only the report and sanction draft made by ACB was forwarded to the respondent No.2 for issuance of prosecution sanction order. The directions passed by State Government on 15.05.2012 with directions to all Head of departments for making compliance at the time of issuance of prosecution sanction have not been complied with, the respondent issued the prosecution sanction on the basis of draft of sanction provided by the ACB which is verbatim the same and thus the sanction order is liable to be quashed. 17. In support of his submissions the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire records containing the materials collected against the accused during investigation was not placed before the sanctioning authority and in furtherance of that the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka versus Ameer Jan reported in (2007)11 SCC 273 (Criminal Appeal No. 766/2001) decided on 18.09.2007 “8 For the aforementioned purpose, indisputably, application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority is imperative. The order granting sanction must be demonstrative of the fact that there had been proper application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority. We have noticed herein before that the sanctioning authority had purported to pass the order of sanction solely on the basis of the report made by the Inspector General of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha. Even the said report has not been brought on record. We have noticed herein before that the sanctioning authority had purported to pass the order of sanction solely on the basis of the report made by the Inspector General of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha. Even the said report has not been brought on record. Thus whether in the said report, either in the body thereof or by annexing therewith the relevant documents, IG Police Karnataka Lokayuktha had placed on record the materials collected on investigation of the matter which would prima facie establish existence of evidence in regard to the commission of the offence by the public servant concerned is not evident. Ordinarily, before passing an order of sanction, the entire records containing the materials collected against the accused should be placed before the sanctioning authority. In the event the order of sanction does not indicate application of mind as the materials placed before the said authority before the order of sanction was passed, the same may be produced before the court to-show that such materials had in fact been produced.” 18. The learned counsel for the petitioner also has further placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nanjappa versus State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No. 1867/2012) decided on 24.07.2015 in which it was held that validity of sanction can be raised at any stage of the proceedings. He further placed reliance on the judgments passed by a Coordinate Bench pertaining to applicability of own independent mind by the sanctioning authority, namely: (1) Kan Singh Parihar Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. (SBCWP No.12983/2017) (2) Lt. Co. (Retd.) Sher Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SBCWP No.11313/2012. (3) Manish Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (SBCWP No.12684/2012) 19. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the provision 17A of the Act of 1988 stating that no police officer can conduct any inquiry or investigation into an offence punishable under the said Act unless a prior approval of the competent authority is obtained and also a judgment to support the same i.e. judgment passed by the coordinate bench of this Court in Himanshu Yadav versus State of Rajasthan & Ors in SBCWP No. 17545/2021 decided on 19.01.2022. Section 17A of the Act of 1988 is reproduced here as under: “17A. Section 17A of the Act of 1988 is reproduced here as under: “17A. Enquiry or Inquiry or investigation of offences relatable to recommendations made or decision taken by public servant in discharge of official functions or duties: 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.” 20. At the outset the learned counsel for the respondent submitted further submitted that the accused Satyanarayan and his driver Durgaram have admitted in the statements recorded in the Anti Corruption Bureau report dated 29.10.2018 that Rs 10,000/-were taken by the petitioner from the complainant for not entering Babulal’s name in the mutation entry for the land in Khasra No. 1328 situated at Bagdinagar, Tehsil Sojat. 21. The learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that the Sanctioning Authority, Board Of Revenue has considered section 161 crpc statements along with entire material collected during the investigation while issuing prosecution sanction order by the sanctioning Authority, as it is mentioned in the sixth paragraph of the prosecution sanction order dated 16.11.2018. 22. 21. The learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that the Sanctioning Authority, Board Of Revenue has considered section 161 crpc statements along with entire material collected during the investigation while issuing prosecution sanction order by the sanctioning Authority, as it is mentioned in the sixth paragraph of the prosecution sanction order dated 16.11.2018. 22. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that as per Section 19 (3) (b) of the Act of 1988, no court shall stay the proceedings under the Act of 1988 on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction granted by the authority, unless it is satisfied that such error, omission or irregularity has resulted in a failure of justice thus in the present case, the grave allegations on the petitioner cannot be ignored as the evidence on record proves that the petitioner has taken bribe from the complainant. Section 19 (3) (b) of the Act of 1988 has been reproduced here as under: “19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution.— (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),— (b) no court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction granted by the authority, unless it is satisfied that such error, omission or irregularity has resulted in a failure of justice;“ 23. The learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Ved Prakash versus State of Rajasthan & Ors in SBCWP No. 4965/2017 decided on 31.05.2017. The relevant portion of the judgmentis reproduced here as under: “This Court considered the scope of application of mind in the case of Prakash Dharu vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil writ petition No.3055/2013), decided on 14.06.2016 and held that the language of a prosecution sanction order in cases of red handed trap of a public servant has to be structured in a very narrow compass without scope for any significant deviation. The said judgment was affirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench vide judgment dated 22.07.2016 passed in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.607/2016. Thus, apparently, the order of grant of sanction must convey the reasons for which, the sanctioning authority was persuaded to grant sanction against the accused pubic servant. The said judgment was affirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench vide judgment dated 22.07.2016 passed in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.607/2016. Thus, apparently, the order of grant of sanction must convey the reasons for which, the sanctioning authority was persuaded to grant sanction against the accused pubic servant. In the case at hand, the facts placed by the prosecuting agency before the sanctioning authority provided sufficient material so as to satisfy it that the public servant should be prosecuted and hence, the sanctioning authority was indeed justified in granting prosecution sanction against the petitioner. Viewed in light of the judgment in the case of C.S. Krishanmurthy (supra), apparently the defences of the accused are not required to be adverted to by the sanctioning authority while granting prosecution sanction. Otherwise also, in view of clear language of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the sanction granted by the competent authority cannot be interfered with unless the court is satisfied that the alleged error, omission or irregularity in the sanction order resulted into failure of justice. In the case at hand, this Court after having minutely examined the sanction order and the other material placed on record, is fully satisfied that no failure of of justice was occasioned by the sanctioning authority while granting sanction to prosecute the accused petitioner for the above offences. Rather, the facts available on the record made imperative that he must be prosecuted for such offences………..” 24. The learned counsel for the respondent also placed reliance on the judgment-rendered by the coordinate bench of this Court in the case of CP Borana versus State of Rajasthan & Ors in SBCWP No. 3682/2009 decided on 02.05.2023. The relevant portion of the judgmentis reproduced here as under: “’22. This Court in Babu Singh vs State of Rajasthan S.B civil Writ Petition No.5558/2022 decided on 02.05.2022, with reference to requirement of independent application of mind after taking into consideration the judgments in the case of Mansukhlal (supra) and Ameer Jan (supra)came to the following conclusion: "The parameters for grant of sanction and the requirement of independent application of mind by the authority have been well established in C.SKrishnamurthy vs. State of Karnataka (2005) 4 SCC 81 , wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court inter alia laid down as under: 9. xxxxx After referring to several judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra through C.B.I. Vs. xxxxx After referring to several judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra through C.B.I. Vs. Mahesh G. Jain (2013) 8 SCC 119 inter alia culled out the following principles in relation to grant of prosecution sanction: "13. From the aforesaid authorities the following principles can be culled out: -(a) It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that the valid sanction has been granted by the sanctioning authority after being satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out. (b) The sanction order may expressly show that the sanctioning authority has perused the material placed before him and, after consideration of the circumstances, has granted sanction for prosecution. (c) The prosecution may prove by adducing the evidence that the material was placed before the sanctioning authority and his satisfaction was arrived at upon perusal of the material placed before him. (d) Grant of sanction is only an administrative function and the sanctioning authority is required to prima facie reach the satisfaction that relevant facts would constitute the offence.(e) The adequacy of material placed before the sanctioning authority cannot be gone into by the court as it does not sit in appeal over the sanction order. (f) If the sanctioning authority has perused all the materials placed before him and some of them have not been proved that would not vitiate the order of sanction.(g) The order of sanction is a prerequisite as it is intended to provide a safeguard to public servant against frivolous and vexatious litigants, but simultaneously an order of sanction should not be construed in a pedantic manner and there should not be a hyper-technical approach to test its validity." 25. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the petitioner was issued the summons thrice, to give his voice sample for comparison, but the petitioner refused to give the voice sample and thus prima facie guilt on behalf of the petitioner is proved, In support of the same the learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the judgmentrendered by the coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Prakash Dharu vs. The state of Rajasthan & Ors SBCWP No. 3055/2013 decided on 14.06.2013 which was affirmed in the case of The state of Rajasthan & Ors vs. Prakash Dharu DBSAW 607/2016 decided on 17.01.2014 The relevant portion of the SB judgmentis reproduced here as under: ‘”So far as the judgment in the case of Ganga Ram (supra)relied upon by the petitioner’s counsel is concerned, the same was based on the peculiar facts of that particular case. The petitioner therein was subjected to disciplinary proceedings under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules in relation to the very same charges on the basis whereof he was sought to be prosecuted. The Inquiry Officer exonerated him of majority of the charges. Despite that, on the very same facts, the petitioner was placed under suspension and sanction was also granted to prosecute him. In those peculiar facts, this Court was of the view that the order according sanction to prosecute the petitioner suffered from non-application of mind and quashed the same. The facts of the case at hand are entirely distinguishable. The petitioner is alleged to have demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.5000/-from the complainant. The fact of demand and acceptance was verified by the recording saved in the digital voice recorder carried by the decoy. The petitioner was asked to give his sample voice for comparison but he refused to do so. Thus, the prosecution would be entitled to claim adverse inference against the petitioner. As per the facts available on record, the petitioner, seems to have caught wind of the trap proceedings after accepting the tainted currency notes at the Police Out Post and tried to escape after throwing down the bribe money. He was however apprehended at the spot. The bribe money was recovered lying behind the Police Out Post. The petitioner’s hands were washed and the wash tested positive for presence of phenolphthalein. He was however apprehended at the spot. The bribe money was recovered lying behind the Police Out Post. The petitioner’s hands were washed and the wash tested positive for presence of phenolphthalein. Thus, the foundation and structure of the order according sanction to prosecute the petitioner could not have been even slightly different from the one which is set out in the impugned order. It is common knowledge that the sanction orders are drawn up after an active discussion is held between the sponsoring and the sanctioning authorities. Thus, the draft sanction if prepared would virtually be an expression of the sanctioning authority. Though the respondents have categorically denied that the draft sanction and the order according sanction are verbatim the same but even if it is accepted for argument’s sake, that the draft sanction and the order according sanction are identical then too, it hardly affects the merits of the order granting sanction because the narration of facts mentioned therein could not have been deviated in the slightest. As a consequence, this Court is of the firm opinion that neither any infirmity is reflected in the order granting sanction nor any prejudice is caused to the petitioner so as to call for any interference in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The impugned order ex-facie does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or perversity so as to call for any interference. The writ petition thus being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. 26. The learned counsel for the Respondent has also placed reliance on the judgmentrendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of C.B.I. vs Ashok Kumar Aggarwal reported in (2014) 14 SCC 295 decided on 22.11.2013. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced here as under: “17. 26. The learned counsel for the Respondent has also placed reliance on the judgmentrendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of C.B.I. vs Ashok Kumar Aggarwal reported in (2014) 14 SCC 295 decided on 22.11.2013. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced here as under: “17. Before proceeding further, it may be pertinent to note that the sanction order speaks of consideration of the entire material including the case diaries and documents collected during the course of investigation and statements recorded Under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure and statements recorded by the Magistrate Under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure The learned Special Judge dealt with the issue in its order and brushed aside the same observing that the same may be factually incorrect, and there was a letter on record showing the true picture that the relevant documents had not been sent to the sanctioning authority. However, it is open to the prosecution during the course of trial to examine the sanctioning authority where such a discrepancy can be explained. The learned Special Judge has wrongly labeled such a fact which goes to the root of jurisdiction and clearly shows that the extent to which there could be application of mind was a mere discrepancy. The relevant part of the order of the Special Judge reads: The contents of Para 27 of the sanction order dated 26th November, 2002 stating that the case diaries, documents collected by the investigating officer during the course of investigation, statements of witnesses Under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure and Under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure were considered by the sanctioning authority may be factually incorrect in view of the letter dated 24 May, 2002, written by the DIG of the CBI, which shows that this document had not been sent. However, this statement by itself at this stage cannot be construed non-application of mind by the sanctioning authority. If the charges are framed against the accused and the case goes for trial the sanctioning authority shall get an opportunity to explain the discrepancy.” 27. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the 28. There is no iota of doubt that the draft sent by the Anti Corruption material available on record and the judgments cited at the bar. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the 28. There is no iota of doubt that the draft sent by the Anti Corruption material available on record and the judgments cited at the bar. Bureau for grant of prosecution sanction in accordance with Section 19 of the Act of 1988 and the prosecution sanction granted by the Chairman, Board of Revenue, Ajmer, dated 16.11.2018, is ad-verbatim the same. The prosecution sanction order dated 16.11.2018 (Annexure28) and the draft sent by the Anti Corruption Bureau (Annexure-32), is reproduced hereunder:- (Annexure-28)-Order of prosecution sanction dated 16.11.2018. 29. It is an admitted position that the Chairman, Board of Revenue, Ajmer is a competent authority to grant prosecution sanction against the petitioner but the order by which, the prosecution sanction has been granted, should demonstrate and reflect that the authority concerned, has applied its own mind by taking into consideration all the relevant facts, material placed before it, but in the case at hand, the order by which, the prosecution sanction has been granted against the petitioner dated 16.11.2018, lacks application of mind by the Chairman, Board of Revenue, Ajmer, as it is ad-verbatim the same to the draft sent by the Anti Corruption Bureau. This Court also observes that in the case of Manish Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2013 WLC (Raj.) UC 153, passed by this Court, held as under:- “6. As already stated, in the instant matter too the sanction granted and the draft to grant sanction are ad verbatim same. The Director, Mines and Geology appears to have adopted the draft ipse dixit. Section 19 of the Act of 1988 postulates absolute authority to grant 35 sanction for prosecution to the competent authority, as such, the competent authority is required to apply its own mind by considering all relevant facts. The competent authority may avail assistance of other persons, but In no case, any other authority can initiate the process of consideration for grant of sanction and Instruct the competent authority 40 for granting sanction. In the case in hand, the consideration for grant of sanction, as a matter of fact, was Initiated by the Anti Corruption Bureau by sending a draft for granting sanction for prosecution. In the case in hand, the consideration for grant of sanction, as a matter of fact, was Initiated by the Anti Corruption Bureau by sending a draft for granting sanction for prosecution. The Anti Corruption Bureau could have communicated all relevant facts on the basis of which prosecution sanction could have been granted, but 45 in no case, the Bureau could have Instructed for grant of prosecution sanction under a proposed and drafted document. The prosecution sanction granted in the Instant matter by the Director, Mines and Geology, Udaipur under the letter dated 18.10.2012 on face depicts non-application of mind and abdication of the powers by the Anti 50 Corruption Bureau. The same, therefore, is illegal. 7. The writ petition in view of the discussion made above deserves Acceptance. Accordingly, the same is allowed. The sanction granted for prosecution of the petitioner under the letter dated 18.10.2012 is declared illegal, hence, quashed. However, the competent authority is at liberty to reconsider the entire matter afresh at its own in accordance with law for grant of sanction to prosecute the petitioner under the provisions of the Act of 1988.” 30. This Court also observes that validity of sanction for prosecution would 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. It is important to note that consideration implies the application of mind as the order of sanction must ex-facie disclose that the sanctioning authority has applied its own independent mind for the generation of genuine satisfaction while granting the sanction. Since, the discretion to grant or not to grant sanction rests absolutely to the sanctioning authority, therefore, its discretion to show that the sanctioning authority has applied its own independent mind while granting the prosecution sanction and in the case in hand, the order dated 16.11.2018, lacks application of mind being ad-verbatim the same. However, the competent authority is at liberty to reconsider the entire matter afresh at its own in accordance with law for grant of sanction to prosecute the petitioner under the provisions of the Act of 1988. 31. The prosecution sanction granted against the petitioner vide order dated 16.11.2018, is declared illegal and is hereby quashed and set aside. 32. The writ petition is allowed in above terms. 31. The prosecution sanction granted against the petitioner vide order dated 16.11.2018, is declared illegal and is hereby quashed and set aside. 32. The writ petition is allowed in above terms. Stay application as well as all other pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.