Sri Dinesh Kallahalli vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 11213 Kant

                             1

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

                          BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

        WRIT PETITION NO.6954 OF 2022 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:
SRI DINESH KALLAHALLI
S/O RAMAIAH KALLAHALLI,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
SOCIAL ACTIVIST,
R/AT KALLAHALLI VILLAGE & POST,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 117.
                                               ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MANISH ARADHYA D.P., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       REP BY CHEIF SECRETARY,
       ROOM NO.320, 3RD FLOOR,
       VIDHANA SOUDHA,
       BENGALURU - 560 001.

2.     THE PRINCIAL SECRETARY,
       GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
       DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
       FAMILY WELFARE,
       VIKAS SOUDHA,
       BENGALURU - 560 001.

3.     THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
       ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU (ACB),
       BENGALURU CITY NO.49,
       KHANIJA BHVANA,
       RACE COURSE ROAD,
       BENGALURU - 560 001.

4.     DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE / SHO
       ANTI CORRUPTION BUREU (ACB),
                                    2

     BENGALURU CITY NO.49,
     KHANIJA BHVANA,
     RACE COURSE ROAD,
     BENGALURU - 560 001
                                                   ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.V.KRISHNA, AGA;
    SRI. P.N.MANMOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING
THE R2 TO CONSIDER THE REQUEST LETTER UNDER SECTION
17A OF PC ACT GIVEN BY THE R3 TO INVESTIGATE ON
07.07.2021, SEEKING PERMISSION TO CONDUCT INQUIRY/
INVESTIGATION AGAINST SRI.PANKAJ KUMAR PANDEY, IAS,
COMMISSIONER     OF  HEALTH    AND  FAMILY   WELFARE,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, AROGYA SOUDHA, BENGALURU
AND ETC.

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                              ORDER

The short grievance of the petitioner is as to non-

consideration of request of Respondent - Anti-Corruption

Bureau for the grant of sanction under the provisions of

Section 17(A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in

respect of intended prosecution. Learned counsel appearing

for the Anti-Corruption Bureau submits that his client has

already sent intimation to the Government and has

requested for expeditious consideration of the request for

the grant of sanction.

2. Learned counsel for the State submits that he

would instruct his client to look into the grievance as to the

alleged delay brooked in considering the request for grant

of sanction, keeping in view the judgment of Hon'ble

Bombay High court in JOYS PLAMKOOTHIL THOMAS VS.

UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER, Crl. Appeal No.30/2016 in

accordance with law and in a time bound manner.

Accordingly, writ petition is disposed off fixing time for

compliance, three months. All contentions are kept open.

Costs made easy.

Sd/-

JUDGE

DS