JUDGMENT : A. BADHARUDEEN, J. 1. This Writ Petition (Civil) has been filed by the complainant in C.M.P.No.123/2021 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Muvattupuzha, challenging Ext.P5 order, whereby sanction for prosecution, as provided under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the PC Act, 1988’ hereinafter), was declined. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, denial of sanction as per Ext.P5 order, acting on reference No.5 in Ext.P5, is not at all justified by valid reasons, particularly when sanction was granted to prosecute the 1 st accused in this crime, who is similarly placed. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision in Bharat Raj Meena v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2024 (4) KHC 52 to contend that the order of granting or declining sanction should reflect that sanctioning authority was furnished with all relevant facts and materials and applied its mind to all those materials. Further, the validity of the sanction would therefore depend upon the materials placed before the sanctioning authority and on the application of mind by the sanctioning authority to those materials and facts of the case. Further, when the order granting or declining sanction is challenged before a court, the court must determine whether there has been an application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority concerned with the materials placed before it. The order of sanction must ex facie disclose that the sanctioning authority had considered the facts and all relevant materials placed before it. In order to observe so, this Court relied on the decisions in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, (2014) 14 SCC 295 and Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, 1997 KHC 1065. 4. It is pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, who opposed the prayer in the writ petition, that in paragraph No.3 of Ext.P5 order, the reason for denying sanction was narrated to the effect that, in order to utilize the CSR Fund of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) during the Covid- 19 period, no guidelines had been issued, and that is why sanction was denied as per Ext.P5. 5. 5. On perusal of paragraph No.3 in Ext.P5 order, it could be gathered that there is no reference as regards to verification of the prosecution records while issuing Ext.P5. The only reason for denying sanction, as could be seen from paragraph No.3 of Ext.P5 order is that, the demand of the complainant to find out beneficiaries of CSR Fund during Covid-19 was not practical, since there were no guidelines as to use of CSR Fund. After describing the procedure as above, in Ext.P5 order, the prosecution case or verification of the prosecution records were neither considered, referred to, nor made the basis for any reasoned decision, justifying denial of sanction. It is evident that the authority failed to apply its mind and no rational decision was taken as per the decisions in Bharat Raj Meena ’s case (supra) and Ashok Kumar Aggarwal ’s case (supra). Therefore, this Court is of the view that Ext.P5 order would require interference by setting aside the same and by remand of the matter. 6. In the result, this Writ Petition (Civil) stands allowed and Ext.P5 order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Sanctioning Authority. The Sanctioning Authority is directed to re-consider the issue of sanction in accordance with the settled legal position discussed hereinabove. There shall be a direction to the Sanctioning Authority to pass fresh orders as regards to grant of sanction, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and the complainant shall also be given opportunity to submit his version in the matter of sanction, as per the second proviso to Section 19 of the PC Act, 1988. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Sanctioning Authority, for information and compliance.