ORDER : 1. Before the counsel appearing for the petitioner proceed with the arguments, learned counsel appearing for the CBI submits that the reply to the petition on behalf of the CBI has already been submitted. Counsel has also raised an objection that the petitioner has not served the copy of this petition in the office of ASGI, though, the authority of the Union of India i.e. Ministry of Heavy Industries, Government of India is the party to the petition. 2. As regard the serving of advance copy of this petition in the office of ASGI is concerned, learned counsel appearing for the CBI has placed before this Court the notice dated 05.09.2023 issued by the Registrar (Judicial) of the Rajasthan High Court, Bench Jaipur. In clause 5 of the aforesaid notice, provision has been made as regards the serving of advance copy for the writ notices. The said notice is in regard to the writ petitions only and the present petition is the criminal misc. petition under Section 528 BNSS and there is no such order for serving the advance copy of the criminal misc. petition, hence, objection as raised by the counsel appearing for the CBI is overruled. 3. It is also taken into consideration that only Special Public Prosecutor in the criminal matters appointed by the Union of India, can appear in the criminal matters in view of the provisions of Section 18 of the BNSS. 4. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. V.R. Bajwa assisted by Mr. Sneh Deep Khyaliya submits that by filing the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.06.2024 whereby the prosecution sanction has been accorded against the petitioner. Learned Senior Advocate further submits that earlier also on three occasions, the prosecution sanction was refused with regard to the petitioner. He further submits that once the prosecution sanction has been refused, no fresh prosecution sanction can be issued without there being any additional evidence or material on record. He also submits that in the present case on three occasions, prosecution sanction was refused. 5. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in case of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Nishant Sareen, (2010) 14 SCC 527 . 6. Learned counsel appearing for the CBI submits that the prosecution sanction can only be refused or granted by the competent authority. 5. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in case of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Nishant Sareen, (2010) 14 SCC 527 . 6. Learned counsel appearing for the CBI submits that the prosecution sanction can only be refused or granted by the competent authority. He further submits that in the present case, earlier the prosecution sanction was refused by the authority which was not competent to consider the case of the prosecution sanction of the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the CBI has also placed reliance upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Satya Narayan Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan, 2001 (8) SCC 607 , Prakash Singh Badal & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 2007 (1) SCC 1 and State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Pradeep Kumar Gupta, 2011 (6) SCC 389 . 8. Considered the submissions made at bar and also perused the material made available on record. 9. The basic issue raised by the counsel appearing for the petitioner is that once the prosecution sanction has been refused as regards the present petitioner, same cannot be reviewed and fresh prosecution sanction cannot be issued without there being any additional evidence or document. 10. Central Bureau of Investigation in their reply has stated as under: “So far as prosecution sanction of the petitioner S.K. Gupta is concerned the entire material against the petitioner was forwarded to IL, Kota for grant of prosecution sanction against accused Shri Shailesh Kumar Gupta the then Director (F) and Sanction was awaited. Thereafter, the CVO, Solar Energy Corporation India Limited (SECIL), New Delhi vide its letter dated 27.11.2020 intimated that Sanctioning Authority (CMD/SECI) has declined the request for sanction of prosecution against Shri Shailesh Kumar Gupta @ S. K. Gupta, the then Director (F), ILK, now AGM (Finance), SECI. It is pertinent to mention that in the instant matter the CVC after examination of the case vide Office Memorandum No. 009/HVI/014/384892 dated 31.05.2017 had advised the Department (SECI) to grant of sanction for prosecution in respect of Shri S.K. Gupta which was denied by the MD SECI on 14.07.2017. Further, CVC vide OM of even number dated 22.01.2018 had reiterated the same views and advised to grant sanction for prosecution. Further, CVC vide OM of even number dated 22.01.2018 had reiterated the same views and advised to grant sanction for prosecution. CVC vide its letter dated 02.07.2018 intimated to SECIL that CVC reiterates the same view and immediately furnish the status of the Case. Later on, the MD SECI vide its letter dated 16.11.2020 declined the prosecution sanction which was also informed by CVO SECIL as mentioned above. Later on, the instant matter was re-examined at CBI and it was learnt that CBI report relating to accused petitioner Shailesh Kumar Gupta @ S.K. Gupta was wrongly forwarded to the CVO, SECI for according prosecution sanction by IL, as he had joined SECI after resigning from Steel Authority Of India Limited (SAIL) on 13.03.2014, which was not competent authority to grant prosecution sanction against the petitioner, for the offences committed by him during his appointment with the IL, Kota in the year 2009 while keeping his lien with SAIL which comes under the Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises Department of Heavy Industry, Government of India. Thus, it is clear that it was the department and Ministry of Heavy Industries, which was the competent authority to accord Sanction for Prosecution against him. His appointment was made by the Presidential order at IL, Kota and being Presidential appointee the President of India was the removal authority, as the offence took place at IL, Kota. But SECIL not only dealt with the case of sanction for prosecution of accused S.K. Gupta without any authority but also declined the same contrary to the advice of CVC without referring the matter to DoPT in violation of OM dated 01.03.2019 issued by DoPT in case of disagreement. It is pertinent to mention that SECIL was neither the competent authority/department to deal with the instant matter nor was it a department where the accused committed the offence. In view of the above, the matter was again re- examined and decision was taken by CBI to send the CBI Report to the CVO, SAIL for according Sanction for Prosecution in respect of Shri Shailesh Kumar Gupta @ S.K. Gupta taking into consideration the fact that the SAIL was the parent department of Shri S.K. Gupta (as he kept the lien with SAIL).” 11. In view of the facts stated in the reply filed by the CBI, it is revealed that on earlier occasion the prosecution sanction was refused in the case of the present petitioner, though, it is stated by learned counsel for the CBI that earlier the prosecution sanction was refused by the incompetent authority whereas, now, the prosecution sanction has been issued by the competent authority and therefore the prosecution sanction issued by the competent authority is to be taken into consideration. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts, various questions are to be considered and determined by this Court, including: (i) whether the prosecution sanctions refused earlier, were by the incompetent authority? (ii) whether the officers of CBI referred the matter for prosecution sanction to the incompetent authority and, if, they have done so, what action has been taken against those officers by the CBI? (iii) whether once the prosecution sanction has been refused in the matter, other authority can review and issue the prosecution sanction without there being any additional evidence or material on record? 13. For this, the authority which has now issued the impugned prosecution is required to be heard by filing reply to petition. 14. The aforesaid questions require detailed consideration. 15. Issue notices to the respondents. 16. Respondent No.1-CBI has already been represented by its counsel and reply has already been filed on behalf of the CBI, therefore, no notice is required to be issued to CBI. 17. Issue notice to respondent No.2. Rule is made returnable within two weeks. 18. In the meanwhile and till next date, the effect and operation of order dated 12.06.2024 (Annexure-3) issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Heavy Industries, shall remain stayed.