Prashant Kumar Agarwal, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE accused -petitioner by way of this civil writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has challenged the validity of order of sanction dated 18.9.2012 granted by Administrator, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Jaipur under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") to prosecute the petitioner, who at the time of the alleged offence, was posted as Executive Engineer (Civil), Sikar in respect of FIR No. 296/2012 registered at Police Station ACB for the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and offence under Section 120 -B I PC. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of sanction has been passed mechanically without application of mind and without taking into consideration several relevant facts and also considering several irrelevant facts. It was further submitted that the order has been passed overlooking the Circular dated 15.5.2012 issued by the State of Rajasthan requiring that before granting sanction under Section 19 of the Act the competent authority shall independently apply his own mind and after considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case by passing a speaking order sanction would be granted. It was also submitted that it is an admitted fact that a draft of requisite sanction order was provided by the ACB to the sanctioning authority and if one goes into the impugned sanction order, it is clearly revealed that the same has been passed as per the draft provided by the ACB and this fact alone is clear indication of the fact that the competent authority has granted the sanction merely on the asking of the ACB. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that some factual errors were made in the draft prepared by the ACB and the same errors were repeated in the impugned sanction order, which fact alone reveals that the order has been passed mechanically without application of independent mind. It was submitted that it is well settled legal position that if sanction order has been passed without application of independent mind, the same is liable to be quashed. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the cases of Romesh Lal Jain v. Naginder Singh Rana & Ors. reported in : (2006) 1 SCC 294, Subhash Bhatia & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in : 2011 (2) WLC (Raj.) 147, State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nishant Sareen reported in : 2010 (8) Supreme 496, Ganga Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. decided on 13.12.2010 in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 9599/2009 and in Manish Mathur v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. decided on 19.12.2012 in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 12684/2012.
(3.) I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the material made available on record as well as the relevant legal provisions and the well settled legal position.;