Artatran Bhuyan vs State Of Odisha & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 8608 Ori

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK


                  W.P.(C) No.23746 OF 2021

Artatran Bhuyan                         .....                 Petitioner

                                               Mr. G.M. Rath, Advocate
                                Vs.
State of Odisha & Ors.                  .....          Opposite parties

                                                   Mr. S.N. Nayak, ASC




            CORAM:
                DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI

                                        ORDER

17.08.2021

Order No. The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard Mr. S.S. Padhy on behalf of Mr. G.M. Rath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction to opposite party no.1 to take a decision on the sanction for prosecution pending against Ram Narayan Mohanty in connection with Sambalpur Vigilance P.S. Case No.51 of 2018 within a stipulated period.

4. Mr. S.S. Padhy, learned counsel for the petitioner buttress his case relying upon the judgment of the apex Court in Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh, (2012) 3 SCC 64, wherein two questions were raised whether a complaint can be filed by a citizen for prosecuting a public servant for an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and whether the authority competent to sanction prosecution of a public servant for offences under the 1988 Act is required to take an appropriate decision within the time specified in clause (I)(15) of the directions contained in para 58 of the judgment of the apex Court in Vineet Narain v. Union of India, (1998) 1 SCC 226. In Subramanian Swamy (supra), the apex Court in paragraph-48 has referred paragraph-58 of the judgment passed in Vineet Narain (supra), wherein the apex Court has given several directions in relation to CBI, CVC and the Enforcement Directorate. In paragraph-58(I)(15), the apex Court gave the following direction:

"58. (I) (15) Time-limit of three months for grant of sanction for prosecution must be strictly adhered to. However, additional time of one month may be allowed where consultation is required with the Attorney General (AG) or any other law officer in the AG's office."

5. In paragraph-56 of Subramanian Swamy (supra), it is directed that the apex Court deems it proper to observe that in future every competent authority shall take appropriate action on the representation made by a citizen for sanction of the prosecution of a public servant strictly in accordance with the direction contained in Vineet Narain (supra) and the guidelines framed by CVC.

6. In the considered opinion of this Court, the matter requires consideration.

7. Issue notice.

8. Let five extra copies of the writ petition be served within three days on learned Addl. Standing Counsel, as he appears for opposite parties no.1 to 5 to enable him to obtain instructions or file counter affidavit.

Alok DR. B.R. SARANGI, J.