Karnataka High Court
G S Siddalingappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 April, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:14911
WP No. 10096 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.10096 OF 2024 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
G S SIDDALINGAPPA
S/O LATE S SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.227
OPPOSITE TO MARAMMA TEMPLE
GUNJUR POST
VIA VARTHUR
BENGALURU - 87
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.RAKESH B BHATT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
by CHAITHRA A
REPRESENTED BY
Location: HIGH
COURT OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
NR SQUARE
BENGALURU - 560 001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.B.SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R.1;
SRI.MOHAN KUMAR, K.V, ADVOCATE FOR R.2)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:14911
WP No. 10096 of 2024
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
LETTER/ORDER BEARING NO.NAE 28 BBS 2022 DATED 03/05/2023
ISSUED BY THE R-1 TO THE PETITIONER IN ANNEXURE-A AND ALL
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS THEREON AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed assailing the
communication/ letter bearing No.NAE 28 BBS 2022 dated
03.05.2023 issued by respondent No.1, addressed to
respondent No.2 as per Annexure - A, to accord sanction
for investigation against the petitioner under Section 17A
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. The petitioner is working as a Assistant
Revenue Officer in respondent No.2 - BBMP. Based on the
FIR, search was conducted and various files were seized.
Police Inspector, ACB, Ramanagara District addressed a
letter to the Superintendent of Police, ACB, Bengaluru City
Division, Bengaluru indicating that there is dereliction of
NC: 2024:KHC:14911
duty on the part of the petitioner and therefore,
Investigating Agency sought permission from respondent
No.1 - State to investigate under Section 17A of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3. Respondent No.1 - State in response to the
request made by the Investigating Agency seems to have
sent a impugned communication addressed to respondent
No.2 to accord sanction to investigate against the
petitioner.
4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, learned AGA appearing for respondent No.1 and
learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 -
Corporation.
5. The petitioner's apprehension is that
respondent No.1 - State has exceeded its Authority in
recommending respondent No.2 to accord sanction to
investigate against the petitioner. Reliance is placed on the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
NC: 2024:KHC:14911
MANSUKHLAL VITHALADAS CHAUHAN VS. STATE OF
GUJARAT1. The petitioner's apprehension is that
respondent No.2 being a sanctioning Authority may get
influenced by the impugned communication addressed by
respondent No.1 - State. Referring to the above cited
judgment, he would point out that validity of sanction
depends on the applicability of mind by the Sanctioning
Authority. The petitioner's grievance is that by addressing
a letter vide Annexure-A, autonomy of respondent No.2,
which can independently apply its mind before according
permission, is taken away.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2, on instructions, submits that respondent
No.2 - BBMP will independently assess materials and then
proceed to pass appropriate orders. He asserts, there is no
question of getting influenced by the impugned letter
issued by respondent No.1 - State. He has also taken this
Court to the wordings of the letter addressed to
(1997)7 SCC 622
NC: 2024:KHC:14911
respondent No.2 and at the concluding paragraph, there is
no positive direction to accord sanction.
7. Learned AGA arguing in the same vein would
also contend that the letter does not prima-facie indicate
any influence on the sanctioning Authority.
8. Having heard learned counsel on record,
I have also given my anxious consideration to the
impugned letter. This Court would find that respondent
No.1 has not recommended to accord sanction to
investigate against the petitioner. However, in thce light
of statement made by the learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2 that the sanctioning authority would
independently apply its mind before proceeding further
against the petitioner, the captioned writ petition does not
survive for consideration.
9. Respondent No.2 - BBMP dehors the
impugned letter dated 03.05.2023 issued by respondent
NC: 2024:KHC:14911
No.1 as per Annexure - A shall hold an independent
enquiry and thereafter, proceed in accordance with law.
With these above observations, the writ petition
stands disposed off.
Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NBM
