D.K.SINHA, J. - (1.) These two appeals have been preferred by State of Jharkhand and State of Bihar against the judgment dated June 21, 2004 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 864/2004, whereby and whereunder, the writ petition preferred by the petitioner/1st respondent was allowed and the letter No. 6112 dated December 10, 2003 issued by the Government of Jharkhand according sanction under Section 197, Cr. PC to prosecute the writ petitioner 1st respondent has been set aside. The consequential letter No. 6814, dated 15th December, 2003 issued by Government of Jharkhand was also set aside by learned single Judge whereby and whereunder, the Director, Vigilance, D.O.P.I., Government of India, New Delhi was informed that the State Government has accorded sanction to prosecute the petitioner/1st respondent and requested the Government of India to accord sanction for the offence under Prevention of Corruption Act.
(2.) AS both the appeals can be disposed of on short point it is not necessary to discuss all the facts except the relevant one, as stated hereunder. The 1st respondent is an I.A.S. officer of 1970 batch and at the relevant time he was holding the post of Managing Director, Bihar State Credit and Investment Corporation (in short 'BICICO') between 1980 -82. In the year 1983, a complaint was lodged against one C. Singh, Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer, BICICO and others alleging financial irregularities. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, F.I.R. was lodged under Sections 120B, 109, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC read with Sections 5(2), 5(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and a case was registered on January 22, 1985 in the Vigilance Police Station being Case No. 05/85. In the said F.I.R. many of the officers of the BICICO including the 1st respondent, who was the Managing Director, BICICO were made accused. It was alleged that the 1st respondent sanctioned a loan amount of Rs. 5 lakhs to a firm, M/s Biscay Data Products (P) Ltd. and later on the said firm was closed. It was alleged that the 1st respondent alongwith other officers in criminal conspiracy have misused their official position for their financial gain. It was further alleged that in spite of objection raised, the 1st respondent without inviting any tender had allotted work to one Advertising Agency and put the BICICO to financial loss. It appears that a charge -sheet was filed by the I.B. on December 12, 1987 but it recommended to initiate a departmental proceeding against the 1st respondent. A draft charge and a list of evidence were also forwarded to the department. For some reason the matter remain pending for years together and after reorganisation of the State the 1st respondent was allotted the Jharkhand cadre he was also made Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand during April 1, 2003 to November 1, 2003. Thereafter, the Government of Bihar requested the State of Jharkhand to accord sanction under Section 197, Cr. PC to prosecute the 1st respondent. On their request the State of Jharkhand accorded sanction under Section 197, Cr.PC vide letter No. 6112, dated December 10, 2003. The Director (Vigilance), D.O.P.I., Government of India, New Delhi was requested to grant sanction for the offence under Prevention of Corruption Act to prosecute the petitioner/1st respondent vide a letter No. 6814, dated December 15, 2003.
(3.) THE learned single Judge having noticed the fact as was pleaded by the writ petitioner/1st respondent and the decision of the Supreme Court in the case d Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan vs. State of Gujarat, (1997) SCC 622 held that the respondents (State of Jharkhand and Bihar) failed to bring on record any document to suggest that they were considered by the sanctioning authority and after application of mind independently, the authority issued the order of sanction. It was held that the sanctioning authority without application of mind and without any basis had accorded sanction and thereby set aside the impugned order.;