ORDER : 1 As the issue involved in both the Writ Petitions is one and the same, they are being taken up for hearing as well as disposed of by way of this Common Order. 2. Since the facts in both the writ petitions are similar and identical, therefore WP No. 33220 of 2014 is taken as lead case, and the facts therein hereinafter will be referred to for convenience. 3. Initially the petitioner was appointed as Excise Sub Inspector in the year 1981 and subsequently he was promoted as Excise Inspector in the year 1992 and since then the petitioner is working as such. While working as Excise Inspector at Palamaner on the allegation that certain irregularities were committed during the Excise year 2011-2012 in conducting auction of wine shops in the area of his operation, the ACB registered a case in Cr. No. 4/RCO-TCT-2012 dated 16.04.2012 and the matter was investigated into. During investigation, it came to light that the petitioner conspired with A-1 in order to obtain pecuniary advantage of him without public interest to do the official favour of overlooking various violation of Excise Laws and Rules apart from other irregularities as disclosed in the charge sheet. After completion of investigation the 2ndrespondent submitted a final report before the 1st respondent on 5.11.2012 seeking sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is stated that the petitioner was not shown as an accused in the FIR i.e. in Cr. No. 4/RCO-TCT/2012 and until the petitioner received summons directing the petitioner to appear before the Special Judge for ACB Cases on 17.07.2014, he has no knowledge that he was treated as accused in this case. On the requisition made by the 2nd respondent dated 5.11.2012 the 1strespondent considered the request after examining the final report, had come to conclusion that there was no prima facie for according sanction for prosecuting the petitioner before the court and accordingly directed the enquiry to be conducted by the Tribunal vide Memo No. 49991/VIGV(2)/2012 dated 21.12.2012 for disciplinary proceedings as per Rule 3(1) of A.P. Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal)Act 1960 instead of criminal prosecution. While the matter stood thus, the 1st respondent issued G.O.Ms. While the matter stood thus, the 1st respondent issued G.O.Ms. No. 197 dated 16.5.2014 according sanction to prosecute the petitioner for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(a) & (d) r/w 13(2) of P.C. Act 1988 and under Section 120-B and 34 IPC. Pursuant to the said sanction, a charge sheet has been filed by the 3rd respondent and basing on the same the case was taken on file against the petitioner and 3 others and the same was numbered as C.C. No. 16/2014 on the file of Special Judge for ACB Cases, Kurnool. It is further stated that the 1st respondent while according sanction to prosecute the petitioner, considered the very same material, which was earlier considered at the time of referring the matter to the Tribunal for Disciplinary proceedings. When once the 1strespondent has taken a view that the case is not fit for prosecution and accordingly directed an enquiry by the Disciplinary Tribunal, now cannot review or revise its earlier order without assigning any reason whatsoever. Hence the present writ petitions. 4. The counter affidavits are filed in both the matters, for convenience, the averments in counter in W.P. No. 33220 of 2014 are stated as under. 5. The respondents No. 2 and 3 have filed counter affidavit and denied all the allegations made in the petitions. It is stated that Cr. Hence the present writ petitions. 4. The counter affidavits are filed in both the matters, for convenience, the averments in counter in W.P. No. 33220 of 2014 are stated as under. 5. The respondents No. 2 and 3 have filed counter affidavit and denied all the allegations made in the petitions. It is stated that Cr. No. 4/RCO-TCT/12 was registered and investigated into and that after completion of investigation in this case, the Bureau sent final report to Government on 5.11.2012 recommending prosecution in respect of K. Satyanarayana, Inspector P&E, Chittoor (AO.3) and Sri KOB Prabhakar, Inspector, P&E Palamaner (AO-4) in the court of law for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(a) & (d) r/w 13(2) of P.C Act 1988 and Section 120-B and 34 IPC as they abused their official position and willful omission of their lawful duties by conspiring with other accused, failed to confirm that the licensees of 15 A-4 wine shops out of 18 in Chittoor and 9 A4 wine shops out of 13 in Palamaner were Benamies during the process of inspection and monitoring of functioning of the A4 wine shops and also overlooked various omissions, violations of conditions laid down in the licenses and Excise Acts and rules committed in respect of Benami wine shops and other wine shops in their jurisdiction such as loose sales of liquor at shop counters in contraventions of rule 26-(B) of A.P. Excise rules, 2005, sale of liquor over and above MRP and beyond stipulated timings in contravention of rule 31 of A.P. Excise rules 2005, running of Belt shops etc., committed by the benami groups to obtain pecuniary advantage in the form of regular mamools/bribes for himself and other accused without any public interest. It is further stated that during the course of investigation, the cell phone call details of Sri K. Nagabhusanarao (A1) were collected and on scrutiny of the same, it reveals that they are continuously contacting the same of the nowkarnamas of his benami shops and also the P&E Inspectors under whose jurisdiction the wine shops fall. Further it is stated that on perusal of the seized documents from the possession of A1 in the presence of mediators it is categorically established that A1 is benami of 9 A-4 wine shops and also benami group leader of 13 A-4 wine shops in and around Palamaner town. Further it is stated that on perusal of the seized documents from the possession of A1 in the presence of mediators it is categorically established that A1 is benami of 9 A-4 wine shops and also benami group leader of 13 A-4 wine shops in and around Palamaner town. It is further stated that the perusal of the Memo No. 49991/Vig.V(2)/2012-1 dated 21.12.2012 issued by the Government reveals about merely recording in a cursory manner that after examination of the final report of D.G., ACB in the matter it is decided to entrust the case against 15 P&E officials to TDP for regular inquiry. The order is non est in law in so far as the petitioner is concerned as it did not contain the facts and reasons that are ought to have been considered by the Government and appears to have been issued mechanically without application of mind. Thereafter, the Government on consideration of all the facts and circumstances as emanating from the oral and documentary evidence, has thoroughly examined the matter and accorded sanction vide G.O.Ms. No. 197 Revenue (Vig) Department, dated 16.5.2014 supported by reasons for forming its decision to prosecute the petitioner (AO-4). It was further stated in the counter that, in the present case, on receipt of the sanction order, charge sheet was filed and the Court has taken cognizance vide CC No. 16/2014 and the case is posted for hearing on charges to 19.12.2014. Taking cognizance of an offence is a judicial order. In this case the Special Judge has taken cognizance of the offence and the case is posted for hearing on charges against the accused officer/petitioner hence Section 19(3)(a) comes into operation and hence the order of taking cognizance shall not be reversed or altered in appeal or revision on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity. Therefore, the petitions filed by the petitioners are not maintainable under law and there are no merits in the petitions. Under the above facts the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 6. Therefore, the petitions filed by the petitioners are not maintainable under law and there are no merits in the petitions. Under the above facts the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 6. Reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioners in both the matters denying all the averments made in the counter filed by the respondents No. 2 and 3 and submits that the Government after careful consideration of entire material including charge sheet, statements and other materials collected during the investigation produced by the prosecuting agency declined to grant sanction vide Memo No. 49991/VIG.V(2)/2012-1 dated 21.12.2012. The contention of the respondents is that the prosecuting agency collected additional material such as oral and documentary evidence as regards to payment of mamools to the petitioner and another there is no inspection reports pertaining to the A4 licensees is not correct. The aforeset of allegations are part and parcel of the charge sheet and they were placed before the Government for sanction of prosecution and the Government upon consideration of the said material declined to sanction for prosecution, as such the prosecuting agency invented a story as if they collected fresh material subsequent to issue of Memo dated 21.12.2012 by the Government for obtaining sanction. The impugned G.O. is not sustainable in law and liable to be set aside. 7. Heard Sri G. Vijaya Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri S.M. Subhani, learned Standing Counsel for ACB appearing for the respondents. 8. On hearing, learned senior Counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the averments made in the petitions, submits that once the Government adverting to the material on record refused to grant sanction, the same are not be reviewed at a later stage unless fresh material is placed by the competent authority, without there being any fresh material produced by the ACB subsequent order according sanction to prosecute petitioner and no special reasons are assigned for according sanction is nothing but non application of mind by the competent authority and the same is thus being void and trial would be a futile exercise and abuse of process of law. 9. 9. To support his contentions, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on a catena of decisions: (i) State of Punjab and another vs. Mohammed Iqbal Bhatti, (2009) 17 SCC 92 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: In the aforementioned situation, the High Court, opined: “Once the Government passes the order under Section 19 of the Act or under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, declining the sanction to prosecute the concerned official, reviewing such an order on the basis of the same material, which already stood considered, would not be appropriate or permissible. The Government is expected to act consciously and cautiously while taking such serious decisions. The perusal of the record shows that pointed queries had been raised to be answered by the Vigilance Bureau but no answer was forthcoming nor any had been submitted subsequently which culminated into passing of the later order dated September 30, 2004. We refrain ourselves from mentioning the queries which had been raised but it would suffice to say that the queries were never answered at the relevant time when the order dated December 15, 2003 had been passed nor the same was ever commented upon as no answers were placed before the competent authority for passing the impugned order dated September 30, 2004.” (ii) In a case of State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Nishant Sareen, (2010) 14 SCC 527 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: This Court then noticed the opinion of the High Court which was recorded as follows: “Once the Government passes the order under Section 19 of the Act or under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, declining the sanction to prosecute the concerned official, reviewing such an order on the basis of the same material, which already stood considered, would not be appropriate or permissible.” 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. 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. 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. (iii) In another decision reported in Lakshmi Kanth Shinde @ L.K. Shinde v. State of Telangana and others, 2016 (1) ALD (Crl.) 472 wherein the High Court of Judicature, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, held that: While dealing with an identical situation, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chittaranjan Das (supra), at paragraph 14, held as under: “We are of the opinion that in a case in which sanction sought is refused by the competent authority, while the public servant is in service, he cannot be prosecuted later after retirement, notwithstanding the fact that no sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act is necessary after the retirement of Public Servant. Any other view will render the protection illusory. Situation may be different when sanction is refused by the competent authority after the retirement of the public servant as in that case sanction is not at all necessary and any exercise in this regard would be action in futility.” 18. The validity of the sanction would, therefore, 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. Consideration implies application of mind. The order of sanction must ex facie disclose that the sanctioning authority had considered the evidence and other material placed before it. This fact can also be established by extrinsic evidence by placing the relevant files before the Court to show that all relevant facts were considered by the sanctioning authority. [See also: Jaswant Singh v. xxx (1957) II LLJ 696 (SC) and State of Bihar & Anr. vs. P.P. Sharma, 1991 Cri. L.J. 1438] 12. An order of sanction should not be construed in a pedantic manner. The purpose for which an order of sanction is required to be passed should always be borne in mind. 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. L.J. 1438] 12. An order of sanction should not be construed in a pedantic manner. The purpose for which an order of sanction is required to be passed should always be borne in mind. 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. [State of Karnataka v. Ameerjan, (2007) 11 SCC 273 ] The Judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents in Raghunath Anant Govilkar (supra) and Poola Aswartha Narayana (supra) would not render any assistance to the respondents in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chittaranjan Das (supra). Therefore, this Court finds no scintilla of hesitation nor any traces of doubt to hold that the impugned action is highly unreasonable and preposterous and cannot stand for judicial scrutiny. 10. Learned Senior Counsel has also placed reliance on a judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court passed in W.P. No. 25903 of 2014, dated 25.04.2016. 11. Learned Senior Counsel while relying on the above decisions, requests this Court the validity of the sanction would, therefore, 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. He further submits that the order granting sanction must be demonstrative of the fact that there had been proper allocation of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority. He mainly contended that having refused to accord permission to prosecute the petitioner, it is absolutely not open for the State Government to permit the ACB to file charge sheet without there being any new material available before the State Government. Therefore, request this Court to pass appropriate orders. 12. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently submitted that there is no illegality nor there is any procedural infirmity in the impugned action and in the absence of the same, the present writ petitions are not maintainable and the petitioners are not entitled for any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently submitted that there is no illegality nor there is any procedural infirmity in the impugned action and in the absence of the same, the present writ petitions are not maintainable and the petitioners are not entitled for any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He further submits that duly taking into consideration, the report of the ACB, the State Government granted permission to file charge sheet and the contention that earlier the State Government has refused to grant sanction, as such the impugned action is untenable cannot be sustained. 13. To support his contentions, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents has placed a catena of decisions of various High Courts, as under: (i) K. Srinviasulu vs. Government of A.P. W.P. No. 14967 of 2009, dated 26.02.2010 (ii) Abdul Aziz Gauri vs. State of Rajasthan & others, 2014 (3) RLW 2611 (Raj.) Wherein the Rajasthan High Court held that: the impugned order has been passed by the competent authority. The circular dated 6.4.2002 are merely rules of business for internal guidance of the departmental working and they do not have any statutory force – order passed on subjective satisfaction of the authority, can not be struck down in exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. (iii) State of Maharashtra through CBI vs. Mahesh G. Jain, (2013) 8 SCC 119 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that Sanction order may expressly show that: the sanctioning authority has perused the material placed before this and after consideration of the circumstances, has granted sanction of prospection and that the prosecution may also prove by adducing evidence that the material was placed before the sanctioning authority and a satisfaction was arrived at upon perusal of the materials before him. (iv) Mohd. Aleemuddin vs. State of A.P. 2013 SCC Online AP 1162, wherein the High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that: “........the order passed by the competent authority only directing departmental enquiry and not to imitate any criminal prosecution against the petitioner and the subsequent order passed by the competent authority according to sanction to prosecute the petitioner are on the very same material. Moreover, in the earlier order, the sanctioning authority having considered the entire material placed before it in the form of final report filed by the ACB specifically mentioned that it seems to be a case of foisted trap.....” (v) State of Punjab and another vs. Mohammed Iqbal Bhatti, (2009) 17 SCC 92 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that: “.....Although the State in the matter of grant or refusal to grant sanction exercises statutory jurisdiction, the same, however, would not mean that power once exercised cannot be exercised once again. For exercising its jurisdiction at a subsequent stage, express power of review in the State may not be necessary as even such a power is administrative in character. It is, however, beyond any cavil that while passing an order for grant of sanction, serious application of mind on the part of the authority concerned is imperative. The legality and/or validity of the order granting sanction would be subject to review by the criminal courts. An order refusing to grant sanction may attract judicial review by the superior courts.” (vi) Parkash Singh Badal and another vs. State of Punjab and others, (2007) 1 SCC 1 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that: “.......In the present case, it being found that public servant in question had ceased to be a public servant since he had ceased to hold the office where the alleged offence was committed, question as to non-applicant of mind, etc in grant of sanction had become academic......” (vii) Indu Bhusan Chatterjee vs. State of West Bengal, 1958 AIR 148 : 1958 SCR 1001 wherein the Apex Court held that: “the essentials of a valid sanction were present in the case that the conviction was valid.” 14. Learned Standing Counsel has also placed reliance on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in B. Kalimulla vs. State of A.P. Rep. at Hon’ble High Court of A.P. Writ Appeal No. 203 of 2020 dated 23.09.2021 and SLP No. 1043 of 2022 dated 04.02.2022 which was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 15. On a perusal of the above citations would go to show that although the State in the matter of grant of or refusal to grant sanction exercises statutory jurisdiction, the same, however, would not mean that power once exercised cannot be exercised once again. 15. On a perusal of the above citations would go to show that although the State in the matter of grant of or refusal to grant sanction exercises statutory jurisdiction, the same, however, would not mean that power once exercised cannot be exercised once again. It is also manifest that while passing an order for grant of sanction, serious application of mind on the part of the authority concerned is imperative. The sanctioning authority must apply its mind on all material facts and material evidence collected during the investigation. 16. This court observed in Mahesh G. Jain (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed that 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 of prosecution and that the prosecution may also prove by adducing evidence that the material was placed before the sanctioning authority and a satisfaction was arrived at upon perusal of the materials before him. 17. On perusing the material on record, this Court observed that, after completion of investigation the 2nd respondent submitted a final report before the 1st respondent on 5.11.2012 seeking sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Thereafter, on the requisition made by 2nd respondent dated 05.11.2012, the 1st respondent considered the request after examining the final report and came to conclusion that there was no prima facie case for according sanction and accordingly issued Memo vide No. 49991/VIGV(s)/2012 dated 21.12.2012 directed to conduct enquiry by the Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings as per Rule 3(1) of A.P. Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Act, 1960, instead of criminal prosecution. 18. As seen from the impugned G.O.Ms. No. 197, dated 16.5.2014, it was mentioned at Para 4 and 5, reads as under: “And whereas out of benami License holders of A4 wine shops in Palamaner, 8 license holders are found possessing White Ration cards i.e. the persons whose annual income below Rs.75,000/- (per family) were found in possession of Licenses for A4 wine shops. They were all controlled by one group that was formed with the sole purpose of gaining control over the business of liquor in Palamaner and thereby to make huge unlawful profits. They were all controlled by one group that was formed with the sole purpose of gaining control over the business of liquor in Palamaner and thereby to make huge unlawful profits. They had a substantial share over the business of liquor in Palamaner by adopting the methodology of getting licenses in the names of white ration card holders as Benamies with the active assistance and collusion of the officials of the Excise department right from the stage of auction and through all the months of running the business. And whereas, as the above seized records disclosed collusive corruption, the Inspector, A.C.B. Tirupati Range, Tirupati after obtaining necessary permission registered the occurrence report as a case in Cr. No. 4/RCO-TCT/2012 U/Sec. 465, 468, 471, 120-B, 34, 109 1.P.C. and Sec. 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of P.C. Act, 1988 and took up investigation. The FIR was forwarded to the Honorable Special Judge for SPE/ACB Cases, Nellore.” 19. And a perusal of the Memo No. 49991/VIGV(2)/2012 dated 21.12.2012, it does not indicate what materials have been examined and it merely records that totality of the facts and circumstances were considered. It cannot be construed that by Memo dated 21.12.2012 sanction was refused. On the other hand, the G.O.Ms. No. 197 and G.O.Ms. No. 198, dated 16.5.2014, as noticed earlier, demonstrates that there is application of mind to the relevant facts and material on record and on being satisfied it was decided to exercise powers under Section 19 of the Act of 1988 to accord sanction for the prosecution of the petitioners for the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d ) of the P.C. Act, 1988. 20. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, there are no merits in the present writ petitions and the same are liable to be dismissed. 21. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 22. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.