PRASHANT BANSILAL BAMBversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

                                    (1)
                                                        Cri.WP-273.2022.odt
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

         CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 273 OF 2022
                         WITH
         CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3944 OF 2022

Prashant Bansilal Bamb
Age : 50 yrs, occ : business
R/o Plot No.3-D, Chhabda
Building, Sindhi Colony,
Jalna Road, Aurangabad                                      Petitioner

      Versus

1.    The State of Maharashtra

2.    The Director General of
      Anti-Corruption Bureau,
      Mumbai.

3.    Superintendent of Police,
      Anti-Corruption Department,
      Nanded Range, Nanded.                                 Respondents

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Mr. Shaikh Majid, Advocate for the petitioner.
 Mr. V.D. Sapkal, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. A.D. Khedkar, i/by
     Ms. Priyanka Kale, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
           Mr. Pravin Dighe, Advocate for the Intervenor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
                            VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.

                    Reserved on   :            11 September 2026
                    Pronounced on :            16 September 2026

Order (Per Sandipkumar C. More, J.) :

1.    Rule.    Rule made returnable forthwith.            Heard learned

counsel Mr. Shaikh Majid for the petitioner, learned senior

counsel Mr. V.D. Sapkal as Special Counsel for the State and
                                  (2)
                                                        Cri.WP-273.2022.odt
also learned counsel Mr. Pravin Dighe for the Intervenor,

finally at the admission stage.


2.    The petitioner i.e. the then sitting MLA has filed this

petition for the following relief :

      "A]   To hold and declare that, there is deemed
      permission to conduct an open enquiry in the light of
      the complaint dated 13/09/2019 presented by the
      petitioner with the respondents herein by issuing writ
      of    mandamus      so    as      to   initiate    action    for
      misappropriation, fraud, forgery vis-a-vis under the
      provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act against the
      persons named and involved; and for that purpose
      issue necessary directions".


3.    According to the learned counsel for the petitioner,

P.W.D. Officers of Nanded had committed corruption of 1.37

Crores, and therefore, the petitioner, vide complaint dated

13.09.2019, had prayed to the respondents to initiate action

for misappropriation, fraud, forgery as per the provisions of

Prevention of Corruption Act by holding that there was deemed

permission to conduct the prosecution of the aforesaid PWD

Officers.


4.    As against this, learned senior counsel Mr. Sapkal

strongly opposed the submissions made on behalf of the
                                  (3)
                                                     Cri.WP-273.2022.odt
petitioner and contended that the present petition is only for

deemed approval for the prosecution of the concerned PWD

officers, but the Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption

Bureau, Nanded i.e. respondent No.3 had already conveyed to

the petitioner vide communication dated 18.09.2020 that no

such approval for prosecution of the PWD officers was

obtained from the concerned Authority. He pointed out that

Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act contemplates

that such approval is to be given within a period of 90 days,

which can be extended by further period of one month, but

there is no deeming provision stating that if such approval is

not granted, then it is deemed to be granted.


5.    Admittedly, the complaint of the petitioner is in respect of

misappropriation of 1.37 Crores at the hands of PWD officers

of   Nanded   in   respect   of    works     under   13 th   Financial

Commission for the year 2012-2013.           However, statement of

the petitioner was also recorded in respect of his aforesaid

complaint and on enquiry of the said complaint respondent

No.3 found it appropriate for not to grant permission to the

prosecution of PWD officers, Nanded under the provisions of

Prevention of Corruption Act.           We would like to reproduce

Section 17A of Prevention of Corruption Act, which reads as

under :
                                  (4)
                                                     Cri.WP-273.2022.odt
      "17A. Enquiry or Inquiry or investigation of offences
      relatable to recommendations made or decision taken by
      public servant in discharge of official functions or duties.
      [Inserted by Act No. 16 of 2018, dated 26.7.2018.]
      (1)   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 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 that
      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".


6.   On going through the aforesaid section, admittedly, the

Authority has to grant sanction or permission to prosecute the

public servant within 90 days and further in the extended

period of one month, bu there is absolutely nothing in the

section that if    the permission or sanction is not granted

within rhe aforesaid period, then it is to be taken that there is

deemed    permission     for   such     prosecution.       Thus,      by
                              (5)
                                               Cri.WP-273.2022.odt
considering nature of prayer claimed in this petition, no relief

can be granted to the petitioner for want of such deeming

provision.



7.    Even otherwise also, there was enquiry report in respect

of the complaint of the petitioner dated 24.11.2022 and in the

said report two persons were punished for the lapses in the

work, but the said report is also not challenged by the

petitioner.



8.    Under such circumstances, we find no substance in the

petition and it stands dismissed alongwith the pending

criminal application.



9.    Rule is discharged.



(VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV)             (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
       JUDGE                                JUDGE




VD_Dhirde