Special Police Establishment ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 486 MP

                                 --1--


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

                     AT I N D O R E
                         BEFORE
         HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND
                  DHARMADHIKARI
                             &
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA

               ON THE 9th OF JANUARY, 2023

              WRIT PETITION No. 14522 of 2021

BETWEEN:-
SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENT INDORE OIC SANTOSH SINGH
BHADORIYA (D.S.P.) MOTI BANGLA, LOKAYUKT OFFICE, INDORE
THROUGH O.I.C. SANTOSH SINGH BHADORIYA S/O SHRI RAM SINGH
(MADHYA PRADESH)
                                             .....PETITIONER
(SHRI VAIBHAV JAIN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)



AND
   THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY,
1.
   MANTRALAYA, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
   STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
2. LAW AND LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, MANTRALAYA,
   BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
   STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
3. URBAN    DEVELOPMENT      AND    HOUSING     DEPARTMENT,
   MANTRALAYA, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
   SANTOSH SINGH CHOUHAN S/O DEVRAM CHOUHAN AGED:ADULT,
   OCCUPATION: SERVICE, ADDRESS : CHIEF MUNICIPAL OFFICER,
4.
   MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, MANAWAR, DISTRICT-DHAR (MADHYA
   PRADESH)
5. JAKIR KHILJI S/O RASUL, AGE : ADULT, ADDRESS : WARD NO.02
   OPPOSITE POLICE STATION, BHIKANGAON, DISTRICT -
                                --2--

  KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)

  (SHRI ANAND SONI, LEARNED ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENRAL
  WITH SHRI BHASKAR AGARWAL, LEARNED GOVERNMENT
  ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3)
  (SHRI AMOL SHRIVASTAVA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
  RESPONDENT NO.4)
  (SHRI YASHPAL RATHORE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
  RESPONDENT NO.5)



              WRIT PETITION No. 13190 of 2022

BETWEEN:-
SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENT, INDORE, THROUGH O.I.C. (D.S.P.)
SANTOSH SINGH BHADORIYA S/O SHRI RAM SINGH, MOTI BANGLA,
LOKAYUKT OFFICE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                .....PETITIONER

(SHRI VAIBHAV JAIN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)


AND
1.THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY,
MANTRALAYA, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, LAW & LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT,
MANTRALAY, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3.THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING DEPARTMENT,
MANTRALAY, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
4.NAGAR PARISHAD MANDLESHWAR, THROUGH CHIEF MUNICIPAL
OFFICER, KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)
5.DINESH PATIDAR S/O MOTIRAM PATIDAR, AGED:ADULT,
OCCUPATION:SERVICE R/O MUKHYA LIPIK LEKHAPAL NAGAR
PALIKA SANAWAD, DISTRICT-KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)
6.JAKIR KHILJI S/O RASUL, AGE-ADULT, ADDRESS:WARD NO.2
OPPOSITE POLICE STATION, BHIKANGAON, DISTRICT-KHARGONE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
                                             .....RESPONDENTS
                                       --3--

(SHRI ANAND SONI, LEARNED ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENRAL WITH
SHRI BHASKAR AGARWAL, LEARNED GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR
THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4)
(SHRI AMOL SHRIVASTAVA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT
NO.5)
(SHRI YASHPAL RATHORE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT
NO.6)
_________________________________________________

      This petition coming on for order this day, JUSTICE SUSHRUT

ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI passed the following:

                                ORDER

The present petitions have been filed challenging the orders dated 22/01/2020, 08/09/2021, 09/09/2021 and 24/03/2022 passed by respondents No.3 and 4 respectively whereby request for grant of sanction for prosecution of respondents No.4 and 5 for the offences punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 readwith Section 120-B of IPC have been rejected.

2. This issue came-up for hearing before the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No.25917/2021. The Division Bench has passed the following order :-

"7. In the instant case, the question that would arise for consideration is as to whether the Lokayukt, as an institution has any authority to challenge an order refusing to grant sanction by the State. As held hereinabove, the said question has already been answered by this Court in the judgment in the case of Sandeep Kumar Lohani (supra). Every State body has a role to perform. It has to do so within the confines of the power vested in it by statute. The Lokayukt has its 7 role to play as much as the State Government has its role to perform. The duty of the Lokayukt is to conduct an investigation and thereafter to

--4--

place it for grant of sanction or otherwise to the Government. The Government, in turn, has the responsibility to go through the material and thereafter to come to a conclusion as to whether sanction is to be granted or not. The grant of sanction is a very important facet in the matter of prosecution of civil servants. It is intended to ensure that there are no frivolous prosecutions that are carried out. It is for this reason that the question of grant of sanction becomes crucial. Therefore, once the Lokayukt has performed its duty of submitting its report to the Government, its role ends. It is the discretion of the Government to grant sanction or not. When such a sanction has been refused, the Lokayukt could not challenge the said order.

8. Hence, for all the aforesaid reasons, we find no good ground to entertain this petition. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed."

3. In view of the aforesaid, petitions cannot be entertained and accordingly the same being devoid of merit are hereby dismissed. Order passed in W.P. No.25917/2021 shall apply mutatis mutandis under the facts and circumstances of the present case as well.

 (S.A. DHARMADHIKARI)                       (PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA)
                     JUDGE                                 JUDGE

Aiyer*
Digitally signed by
JAGDISHAN AIYER
Date: 2023.01.10 13:18:02
+05'30'