Karnataka High Court

Smt. Shreeroopa vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 October, 2023

Bench: N S Gowda

                                        -1-
                                                   NC: 2023:KHC:35789
                                                 WP No. 20132 of 2023




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                    DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

                                      BEFORE
                                                                        ®
                   THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
                    WRIT PETITION NO. 20132 OF 2023 (S-RES)
            BETWEEN:

                  SMT.SHREEROOPA,
                  D/O LATE G.THIMMA NAIK,
                  AGED BOUT 48 YEARS,
                  R/AT No.304, G2, 3RD STAGE,
                  4TH BLOCK, BASAVESWARANAGAR,
                  BENGALURU-560 079.
                                                      ...PETITIONER
            (BY SRI.D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
                SMT.SIRI RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

            AND:

            1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                  REP BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
                  DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
                  AND REFORMS (DPAR)
Digitally         VIDHANA SOUDHA,
signed by
PANKAJA S         BENGALURU-560 001.
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF    2.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
KARNATAKA         REP. THE ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY,
                  DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
                  VIKASA SOUDHA,
                  BENGALURU-560 001.

            3.    BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
                  T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
                  BENGALURU-560 020.
                  REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

            4.    KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
                  2ND FLOOR, M.S.BUILDING,
                                -2-
                                               NC: 2023:KHC:35789
                                           WP No. 20132 of 2023




      1ST MAIN ROAD,
      AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
      BENGALURU-560 001.
      REPT. BY ITS SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE.

                                          ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.PRATHIBHA.R.K., AGA FOR R-1 & R-2)

       THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH      THE    IMPUGNED           ORDER      BEARING      VIDE
GO.No.CAASUI/620/SEASE/2021,             BENGALURU          DATED
19.08.2023 PASSED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-E IN SO FAR
AS PETITIONER CONCERN, ETC.



       THIS PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR     ORDERS    ON       11.09.2023,     COMING      ON     FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT       THIS     DAY,    THE      COURT   MADE    THE
FOLLOWING



                            ORDER

1. The petitioner is before this Court challenging an

approval accorded by the State Government for

conducting an investigation against her under Section 17A

of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for brevity,

referred to as "the Act").

NC: 2023:KHC:35789 WP No. 20132 of 2023

2. The facts of the case are that a proposal was

submitted by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Anti-

Corruption Bureau, to the Government seeking approval to

investigate Sri T.Shyam Bhat (the then Commissioner of

the BDA) and Smt.Shreeroopa (the petitioner), who was

working as Deputy Secretary-III in the Bangalore

Development Authority ("the BDA", for short).

3. It was stated that the site bearing No.617 measuring

40' X 60' had been allotted to one Sri. P.Bhaskar Reddy by

the BDA in Sir. M.Vishweshwaraiah Layout, 5th Stage.

Subsequently, an alternative site bearing No.1607/69 was

allotted to him in the very same 5th Stage in place of Site

No.617, and an allotment letter, along with a possession

certificate were also issued. Subsequently, a Sale Deed

was also executed in the year 2005 in favour of

Sri. P.Bhaskar Reddy.

4. However, in the year 2012, as per the order of the

Commissioner, six sites measuring 40' X 60' were

converted into twelve sites measuring 30' X 40' and while

NC: 2023:KHC:35789 WP No. 20132 of 2023

doing so, without the approval of Sri Bhaskar Reddy, his

site measuring 40' X 60' was also converted into 30' X 40'

sites and was renumbered as site No.1609/69A before

being allotted to one Puttalakshmamma. Similarly, other

sites were also converted, and separate sub-numbers were

assigned.

5. It was stated that the proposal to modify the layout

and change the measurement of the sites had emanated

from the office of the Executive Engineer and submitted to

the office of the Commissioner, BDA, and that though 40'

X 60' sites had already been allotted, without allotting

alternative sites to such allottees, sites measuring 30' X

40' had been created and allotments were made to several

persons, as a result of which, serious prejudice was said to

have been caused to the original allottees and there was a

suspicion that the officials of the BDA had gained

unlawfully from the said exercise. The Deputy Inspector

General of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, therefore,

sought approval of the State Government to investigate

NC: 2023:KHC:35789 WP No. 20132 of 2023

the then Commissioner Sri T.Shyam Bhat and also the

present petitioner as provided under Section 17A of the

Act.

6. The State Government, on consideration of the said

proposal/request, came to the conclusion that a prima

facie case had been made out, and therefore, it would be

appropriate to accord approval for conducting an

investigation as provided under Section 17A of the Act.

7. As stated above, it is this order of granting approval

under Section 17A of the Act, which is being challenged by

the petitioner in the instant case.

8. Sri D.R.Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the petitioner has strenuously contended

that the order of the State Government granting the

impugned approval was without application of mind and

could not, therefore, be sustained.

9. He placed strong reliance on the judgments rendered

by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in

NC: 2023:KHC:35789 WP No. 20132 of 2023

W.P.No.8905/2022 connected with

W.P.No.9183/2022 disposed of on 13.07.2022 and

W.P.No.24073/2022 disposed of on 01.06.2023. He

stated that this Court has laid down the law that the grant

of prior approval requires serious application of mind and

merely stating that the documents were perused or that a

prima facie case was made out would not suffice for

according approval under Section 17A of the Act.

10. He also contended that in the instant case, apart

from mentioning the words "prima facie", the order did not

indicate any serious application of mind or consideration of

the material that had been placed before the State

Government and it was, hence, untenable.

11. In order to appreciate this contention and ascertain

the legal position, it would be essential to have an

overview of the provisions of the Act.

12. The Act has been divided into five chapters and

consists of 31 sections.

NC: 2023:KHC:35789 WP No. 20132 of 2023

13. Chapter I relates to preliminary aspects of the Act,

such as the title, definitions, etc.

14. Chapter II relates to the appointment of Special

Judges and the cases that can be tried by the Special

Judge, along with the procedures to be followed and

powers of a Special Judge.

15. Chapter III contains provisions which describe the

offences and penalties that would apply in respect of an

offence under the Act.

16. Chapter IV relates to investigation into cases under

the Act and contains three sections i.e.,

(a) Section 17 deals with persons who are

authorized to investigate;

(b) Section 17A, which relates to requirement of

conducting an enquiry or inquiry or

investigation of offences related to

recommendations made or decision taken by

NC: 2023:KHC:35789 WP No. 20132 of 2023

public servant in discharge of official

functions or duties; and

police officer to inspect bankers' books upon

suspicion of an offence which he is

empowered to investigate under Section 17.

17. Section 17A of the Act, which is relevant for the

purposes of the instant case, reads as follows:

"17A. Enquiry or Inquiry or investigation of offences relatable to recommendations made or decision taken by public servant in discharge of official functions of duties.-No police officer shall conduct any enquiry or inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant under this Act, where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties, without the previous approval-

(a) in the case of a person who is or was employed, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed, in

NC: 2023:KHC:35789 WP No. 20132 of 2023

connection with the affairs of the Union, of that Government.

(b) In the case of a person who is or was employed, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of Government;

(c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed.

Provided that no such approval shall be necessary for cases involving arrest of a person on the spot on the charge of accepting or attempting to accept any undue advantage for himself or for any other person:

Provided further that the concerned authority shall convey its decision under this section within a period of three months, which may, for reasons to be recorded in writing by such authority, be extended by a further period of one month."

18. Thus, if any offence under the Act is alleged against

a public servant which is relatable to a recommendation or

decision taken by him, Section 17A of the Act prohibits a

- 10 -

NC: 2023:KHC:35789 WP No. 20132 of 2023

police officer from conducting any enquiry or investigation

without obtaining the approval of the Union Government

or the State Government or the person competent to

remove the public servant, as the case may be.

19. In this particular case, since the petitioner is an

employee of the State Government, it is the State

Government which would be the authority to accord

approval to investigate the petitioner and accordingly for

the purpose of this judgment, reference would be made

only to the State Government.

20. Section 17A of the Act is a protective shield provided

to a public servant from being subjected to an enquiry or

investigation by a police officer. In the event of an

allegation against a public servant that he had committed

an offence under the Act, the law prevents an

Investigating Officer to conduct even an investigation or

inquiry, unless he has secured the permission of the

employer.

- 11 -

NC: 2023:KHC:35789 WP No. 20132 of 2023

21. It is to be noticed here that at the stage of seeking

approval for conducting investigation, the Investigating

Officer would himself not be aware as to whether there

has been a commission of an offence under the Act or the

circumstances surrounding the alleged offence. The

Investigating Officer, at that point in time, would only

have the knowledge of an allegation that an offence has

been committed. In the normal course, in order to

ascertain whether an offence had been actually

committed, the Investigating Officer would naturally have

to conduct an investigation.

22. However, even at this stage, where the Investigating

Officer only has an allegation to act upon and is yet to

ascertain the details of commission of the alleged offence

and collect evidence, the law creates a prohibition on him

from investigating into an offence unless the employer i.e.,

the State Government accords approval. In a sense, a

public servant is placed on a pedestal and treated

differently as compared to a citizen against whom an

- 12 -

NC: 2023:KHC:35789 WP No. 20132 of 2023

allegation of an offence is thrown. The law, thus, grants an

extraordinary layer of protection to a public servant to

even be subjected to an investigation by a police officer,

which is unavailable to an ordinary citizen and is against

the basic principle that a police officer is required to act

with a sense of promptitude and ascertain whether an

offence has been committed, and also collect incriminating

material which would establish the crime without loss of

time.

23. However, in the case of a public servant, the

Legislature, in its wisdom, has thought it fit to ensure that

this normal expectation of a duty being discharged by an

Investigating Officer is prohibited. This is basically because

the law does not intend for a public servant to be

subjected to unnecessary frivolous investigations at the

instance of a disgruntled citizen, which would in turn

amount to preventing the public servant to act without

fear or favour and with due diligence. Obviously, keeping

in mind this objective, the approval of the Government is

- 13 -

NC: 2023:KHC:35789 WP No. 20132 of 2023

made a must under Section 17A of the Act. The provision

fundamentally reflects this intent of the Legislature in

ensuring that the State (Employer) protects its employees

(public servants) from any unwanted or unnecessary

investigation.

24. It must also be borne in mind that it is quite possible

that in a system such as ours, a police officer can proceed

to investigate any public servant, so as to intimidate or

harass a public servant for extraneous factors and such

instances are not uncommon in our country. It is for this

reason that though there was no such provision available

in the Act when it was originally enacted in 1988, probably

by the experience it had in matters in relation to the Act,

the Legislature thought it fit to insert Section 17A of the

Act by way of an amendment in the year 2018.

25. It may be pertinent to notice here that the

Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in the case

Subramanian Swamy1 expressed a reservation about the

Subramanian Swamy v. Director, CBI & Ors.,

- 14 -

NC: 2023:KHC:35789 WP No. 20132 of 2023

provision which requires prior approval of the Government

for even an investigation. The relevant paragraphs read as

follows:

"91. It is pertinent to notice that in Manohar Lal Sharma [Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secy., (2014) 2 SCC 532 : (2014) 4 SCC (Cri) 1] , the learned Attorney General made a concession to the effect that in the event of CBI conducting an inquiry, as opposed to an investigation into the conduct of a senior government officer, no previous approval of the Central Government is required since the inquiry does not have the same adverse connotation that an investigation has. To that extent, Section 6-A, as it is, does not survive. Insofar as investigation is concerned, an investigation into a crime may have some adverse impact but where there are allegations of an offence under the PC Act, 1988 against a public servant, whether high or low, whether decision- maker or not, an independent investigation into such allegations is of utmost importance and unearthing the truth is the goal. The aim and object of investigation is ultimately to search for truth and any law that impedes that object may not stand the test of Article 14.

(underlining by me)

- 15 -

NC: 2023:KHC:35789 WP No. 20132 of 2023

99. In view of our foregoing discussion, we hold that Section 6-A(1), which requires approval of the Central Government to conduct any inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed under the PC Act, 1988 where such allegation relates to: (a) the employees of the Central Government of the level of Joint Secretary and above, and (b) such officers as are appointed by the Central Government in corporations established by or under any Central Act, government companies, societies and local authorities owned or controlled by the Government, is invalid and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. As a necessary corollary, the provision contained in Section 26(c) of Act 45 of 2003 to that extent is also declared invalid."

26. In that judgment, the Apex court went on to strike

down Section 6-A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment

Act, 1946 ("the DSPE Act", for short), a similar

provision, on the ground that it was in contravention of

Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as it provided a

layer of protection to only those public servants above a

particular rank. Despite this ruling, the Legislature,

nevertheless, has inserted Section 17A of the Act by way

- 16 -

NC: 2023:KHC:35789 WP No. 20132 of 2023

of an amendment in the year 2018 and the same has been

in the statute ever since.

27. In contradistinction to Section 6-A of the DSPE Act,

which required the prior approval of the Union

Government in respect of only a certain category of

officers above the Joint Secretary to the Government,

Section 17A of the Act requires the approval of the

Government in respect of all its employees against whom

an allegation of an offence punishable under the Act is

made. In that sense, the reason, for which Section 6-A of

the DSPE Act was struck down as infringing Article 14 of

the Constitution, has been remedied by making prior

approval for an investigation in respect of all the

employees mandatory.

28. In fact, the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in

R.R.Kishore2, which held that the decision in

Subramanian Swamy (supra) declaring Section 6-A of

the DSPE Act to be unconstitutional, would have

CBI v. R.R. Kishore, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1146.

- 17 -

NC: 2023:KHC:35789 WP No. 20132 of 2023

retrospective effect and that the impugned provision would

be ineffective from the very date of its insertion, has

narrated the historical background of the provisions

relating to prior approval under Section 6-A of the DSPE

Act and Section 17A of the PC Act in paragraphs 16 to 19

of its judgment. The relevant portion in paragraph 18 in

relation to Section 17A of the Act for giving the correct

perspective is extracted as under:

"18. The Parliament again inserted Section 17A in the PC Act, 1988 w.e.f. 26.07.2018. This provision has continued to remain in the statute book. It also provided for sanction before prosecution but without any classification of Government servants. All Government servants of whatever category, class, or level, are provided protection Under Section 17A of the PC Act, 1988."

29. It is to be noticed here that the requirement of

obtaining prior approval under Section 17A of the Act is,

however, made unnecessary in cases where the public

servant is arrested on the spot, under the charge of

accepting or attempting to accept any undue advantage

- 18 -

NC: 2023:KHC:35789 WP No. 20132 of 2023

for himself or for any other persons. Thus, in the event of

arrest by the Investigating Officer on the spot, when he

notices acceptance or an attempt to accept any undue

advantage, there is no requirement of obtaining prior

approval. This indicates that an exception is made in

respect of prior approval contemplated and it is clear that

prior approval is required only when the Investigating

Officer is of the opinion that he has credible reason to

believe that an investigation is warranted against a public

servant.

30. It is, therefore, not necessary that there should be

clear incriminating evidence with the Investigating Officer

at the stage of him seeking prior approval under Section

17A of the Act. All that is required under the provisions of

Section 17A of the Act is that the Investigating Officer has

some credible evidence, on the basis of which, he forms

an opinion that an investigation is warranted.

31. As a consequence, the State Government would be

required to only consider the opinion that is formed by the

- 19 -

NC: 2023:KHC:35789 WP No. 20132 of 2023

Investigating Officer and the material that he possesses

while considering the request for approval. Since the

public servant is yet to be investigated, the question of

considering any incriminating material and coming to the

conclusion that an investigation is unnecessary would not

really arise in this particular case Since the public servant

is yet to be investigated, the question of considering

whether there is any incriminating material or its veracity

by the State Government to come to the conclusion that

an investigation is warranted or not, would be untenable

and stand to logic or reason.

32. It may also be pertinent to state here that the State

Government, under the second proviso to Section 17A of

the Act, is required to convey its decision regarding

according approval to conduct an investigation within

three months (which may be extended by a further period

of one month). It is, therefore, clear that the Legislature

has created a time frame for grant of such approval, and

this is to obviously to ensure that the State Government

- 20 -

NC: 2023:KHC:35789 WP No. 20132 of 2023

does not procrastinate in the matter, and thereby, aid the

public servant and undermine the Investigating Officer.

33. Section 17A of the Act is drafted with the overarching

objective of ensuring that unnecessary investigations

against public servants are prevented, and the State

Government is required to take a decision to accord or

refuse approval to conduct an investigation within a time

frame. This indicates the balance that the law intended to

strike in the manner of an investigation being conducted

against a public servant.

34. It is also clear from the wording of Section 17A of the

Act that the State Government is not required to

exhaustively and meticulously consider all the material

available with the Investigating Officer at the time he

seeks approval, and it is only required to examine and

consider whether the opinion formed by the Investigating

Officer that an investigation is warranted is justified or

not. If the State Government is satisfied that the opinion

formed by the Investigating Officer is justified and its

- 21 -

NC: 2023:KHC:35789 WP No. 20132 of 2023

employee is required to be subjected to an investigation,

the State Government can accord its approval.

35. It should not be forgotten that an employer is the

ultimate person to determine whether its employee is

required to be investigated or not, especially when an

allegation of a commission of a criminal offence is leveled

against his employee. If an employer is of the opinion that

his employee deserves to be investigated for the

commission of an offence, the employee cannot contend

that the approval can be granted only if there was clear

and incriminating material to establish the guilt of the

accused. It is to be kept in mind that the State, as an

employer, would want its employees to be above suspicion

and if it takes a decision to accord approval for an

investigation on the basis of an opinion formed by the

Investigating Officer, the said decision would have to be

judged in that light and the desirability or the validity of

the decision itself cannot be doubted.

- 22 -

NC: 2023:KHC:35789 WP No. 20132 of 2023

36. At this stage, the stark and striking difference

between the granting of a "sanction to prosecute" and

"according an approval to investigate" to an Investigating

Officer would have to be elaborated. The grant of

"sanction to prosecute" and the "grant of approval to

investigate" are two very different concepts and would be

governed by completely different parameters. At the stage

of seeking sanction to prosecute, the Investigating Officer

would have completed the investigation and would also

have collected material, which, in his opinion, would prove

that the public servant is guilty of the offence(s) alleged

against him. In other words, at that stage of seeking

sanction to prosecute, the Investigating Officer is well

armed and certain that there is material which would

establish the guilt of the public servants.

37. It is also to be noticed that despite this firm opinion

of the Investigating Officer, which is based on a

comprehensive investigation, the law still mandates that

the State Government should accord sanction to prosecute

- 23 -

NC: 2023:KHC:35789 WP No. 20132 of 2023

and only when such sanction is granted can a prosecution

be launched against a public servant. At the stage of

granting sanction to prosecute, the respective Government

is required to examine all the materials collected during

the course of investigation and then come to a conclusion

as to whether the materials collected indicate if a case for

prosecuting the public servant is made out.

38. The Government, even after a comprehensive

investigation has been conducted and material has been

collected, which, in the opinion of the Investigating Officer

establishes the guilt of the public servant, has been

conferred with the power to refuse sanction to prosecute.

This indicates that there is a discretion vested in the State

Government to refuse sanction to prosecute, if it has

reason to believe that a public servant should not be

prosecuted. This is fundamentally a reflection of the right

that an employer possesses to decide whether it would

want its employee to be prosecuted. It is to be kept in

mind that a crime is always considered as a Crime against

- 24 -

NC: 2023:KHC:35789 WP No. 20132 of 2023

the State and it is the State which has the absolute right

to prosecute the offender. If, however, the law confers

upon the State, a discretion to prosecute its servant, the

same cannot be said to be arbitrary as the State is

deemed to exercise its jurisdiction wisely and judiciously.

39. In respect of according an approval to investigate,

obviously, the situation would be completely different,

since at that juncture, the Investigating Officer would not

normally have any incriminating material and would only

possess credible information about the commission of an

offence, and it is this credible information that is required

to be considered and analysed by the Government. It is,

thus, clear that the parameters that govern the according

of approval to investigate would be completely different

and the Government would have a much wider discretion

while considering the request of the Investigating Officer.

40. To summarize, the law has conferred a two-fold

protection vis-à-vis the public servants for offences under

the Act. The first layer of protection is even before an

- 25 -

NC: 2023:KHC:35789 WP No. 20132 of 2023

investigation is conducted, where a prior approval is

needed under Section 17A of the Act. The second layer of

protection is after the completion of investigation, where

sanction to prosecute the public servant is required under

Section 19 of the Act.

41. It is clear from the statutory framework that the

Legislature has decided to not only protect the public

servants from unwanted investigation but also from a

prosecution, by making it mandatory for the Investigating

Officer to obtain two different and separate approvals for

investigation and for prosecution.

42. It should also not be forgotten that merely because

an approval is accorded to conduct an investigation, the

Investigating Officer cannot proceed to prosecute the

public servant and he is still required to obtain prior

sanction of the Government to prosecute the public

servant under Section 19 of the Act.

- 26 -

NC: 2023:KHC:35789 WP No. 20132 of 2023

43. Section 19 of the Act, in fact, prohibits a Court from

taking cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections

7, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a

public servant, unless there is prior sanction by the

respective Government.

44. Two other factors would have to be noticed in this

regard.

45. The last proviso to Section 19 of the Act enables the

Central Government to prescribe guidelines for the

purpose of granting sanction to prosecute a public servant.

Similarly, Section 29A of the Act also enables Rules to be

framed in the matter of granting sanction to prosecute

under Section 19 of the Act. This clearly indicates that the

law has made it clear that the granting of sanction to

prosecute would have to be guided by Rules or guidelines

so that sanctions are not simply granted for requests

made by an Investigating Officer.

- 27 -

NC: 2023:KHC:35789 WP No. 20132 of 2023

46. However, in respect of Section 17A of the Act, there

is no such proviso or an enabling provision for the

Government to frame Rules or guidelines for the purpose

of according approval to conduct investigation. This,

therefore, indicates that the law accepts that there would

be different standards for granting approval to investigate

and for granting of a sanction to prosecute, and one

cannot be equated with the other. To put it differently, the

parameters that are to be applied for according approval

to investigate a public servant are not as stringent as the

parameters which provide for granting sanction to

prosecute a public servant.

47. The integrity of a public servant is required to be

beyond suspicion as in the proverbial adage that "Caesar's

wife must be above suspicion". If there exists even a

shadow of doubt on the integrity of a public servant, it will

not only harm his reputation but would also tarnish the

entire system of which he is a part. Thus, in such a

situation, if the aspersions cast on the integrity of a public

- 28 -

NC: 2023:KHC:35789 WP No. 20132 of 2023

servant and an Investigating Officer under the Act

harbours a view that an investigation is necessary, it

would be in the interests of both the Government and the

public servant that such a nagging suspicion is obliterated.

In order to achieve this objective, therefore, the

Government should be given the greatest degree of

latitude to accord approval for conducting investigation.

The contention, therefore, that the material furnished by

the Investigating Officer is required to be subjected to a

microscopic examination before according approval to

investigate a public servant, as suggested by the learned

Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, does not merit

acceptance.

48. As stated earlier, before seeking approval under

Section 17A of the Act, the Investigating Officer would

only have to form a tentative opinion to determine as to

whether an investigation is warranted or not, having

regard to the material/credible information in his

possession at that point in time. It may so happen that

- 29 -

NC: 2023:KHC:35789 WP No. 20132 of 2023

after conducting an investigation, the Investigating Officer

may very well come to the conclusion that there is no

justification for initiating prosecution and may drop such

proceedings against the public servant. Thus, the mere

grant of approval to conduct investigation would not lead

to an inference that the investigation would necessarily

culminate in a prosecution against the public servant.

49. The argument that the materials collected have to be

considered meticulously, as indicated by this Court in

W.P.No.8905/2022, cannot be accepted for the reason

that, in the said writ petition, the Court was considering an

order of approval in that case, where the order of approval

merely stated that the Government had meticulously

considered the matter by the use of the term -

"ಕೂಲಂಕುಷ ಾ ಪ ೕಲಸ ಾ ". The relevant portion of the order

reads as follows:

"27. If, on a coalesce of all the facts that are narrated hereinabove and the order that is impugned in the petition is tested on the anvil of objects and

- 30 -

NC: 2023:KHC:35789 WP No. 20132 of 2023

reasons of Section 17A of the said Act, it would fall foul of the same as the order except saying

"ಕೂಲಂಕುಷ ಾ ಪ ೕಲಸ ಾ " there is nothing indicative

of the fact that it bears application of mind. Granting approval for setting the criminal law in motion cannot be a frolicsome act as is done by the State in the case at hand, as it does not even bear any semblance of application of mind. Therefore, on the ground that the order dated 21.04.2022 does not bear any application of mind, would lose its legal legs to stand and, as a result, would meet its obliteration."

50. Even in respect of the decision rendered in W.P.

No.24073/2022, a Co-ordinate Bench also found that in

the aforementioned case, a cryptic order had been passed

which was not a speaking order, and therefore, the

approval accorded under Section 17A of the Act could not

be sustained.

51. However, in this case, the request of the

Investigating Officer is elaborate, and he had stated that a

block of 40' X 60' sites were converted into 30' X 40' sites,

despite the sites already having been allotted and

- 31 -

NC: 2023:KHC:35789 WP No. 20132 of 2023