STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.versusMOHAMMED IQBAL BHATTI

                       [2009] 11 S.C.R. 790


A                   STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.
                                  v.
                    MOHAMMED IQBAL BHATII
                  (Civil Appeal No. 4969 of 2009)
                           JULY 31, 2009
B
            [S.B. SINHA AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.]

       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.197 - State's power
  of review in the matter of grant of sanction in terms of s.197 -
c Sanction for prosecution refused by competent authority -
  Matter again placed before competent authority after about 2
  years and sanction granted - High Court holding that State
  had no power of review - Interference with - Held: Not called
  for - High Court had perused the entire records and arrived
D at a finding of fact that no fresh material was placed before
  the competent authority for reconsidering the matter- Perusal
  of earlier order showed that before the competent authority all
  the relevant records were produced - Constitution of India,
  1950 - Article 166 - Rules of Business - rr.8 and 9.
E
      An FIR was lodged against respondent-public
  servant. The sanction for prosecution was refused by
                                                                          ...
  competent authority. The matter was again placed before
  the competent authority and sanction was granted. The
  respondent filed writ petition before High Court. High
F Court allowed the writ petition holding that the State had
  no power of review and in any event, the impugned order
  could not be passed as Uie State while passing its earlier
  order dated 15.12.2003 had exhausted its jurisdiction.
  Hence the appeal.
G
        Dismissing the appeal, the Court

       HELD: 1. The respondent is a public servant. The              ..
    Governor of the State of Punjab is his appointing
H                               790
      STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. v. MOHAMMED IQBAL 791
                       BHATII

     authority. He is, therefore, not removable from his office   A
     save by and with the sanction of the Government and in
     that view of the matter if he is accused in any offence
     alleged to have been committed by him while acting or
     purporting to act in discharge of his official duty, grant
     of prior sanction is imperative in character in terms of     B
     Section 197 Cr.PC. The power of the State is performed
     by an executive authority authorized in this behalf in
     terms of the Rules of Executive Business framed under
"'   Article 166 of the Constitution of India insofar as such a
     power has to be exercised in terms of Article 162 thereof.   c
     Once a sanction is refused to be granted, no appeal lies
     thereagainst. [Para 6] [795-G-H; 796-A-B]

           2. Although the State in the matter of grant or refusal
     to grant sanction exercises statutory jurisdiction, the
     same, however, would not mean that po.wer once D
     exercised cannot be exercised once again. For exercising
     its jurisdiction at a subsequent stage, express power of
      review in the State may not be necessary as even such
     a power is administrative in character. It is, however,
     beyond any cavil that while passing an order for grant of E
     sanction, serious application of mind on the part of the
     concerned authority is imperative. The legality and/or
     validity of the order granting sanction would be subject
     to review by the criminal courts. An order refusing to
     grant !:!anction may attract judicial review by the Superior F
     Courts. All such material facts and material evidences
     must be considered by it. The sanctioning authority must
     apply its mind on such material facts and evidences
     collected _during the investigation. Even such application
     of mind does not appear from the order of sanction, G
     extrinsic evidences may be placed before the court in that
•    behalf. While granting sanction, the authority cannot take
     into consideration an irrelevant fact nor can it pass an
     order on extraneous consideration not germane for_
                                                                  H
    792       SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2009] 11 S.C.R.


A passing a statutory order. It is also well settled that the
  Superior Courts cannot direct the sanctioning authority
  either to grant sanction or not to do so. The source of
  power of an authority passing an order of sanction must
  also be considered. The concerned authority cannot also
B pass an order of sanction subject to ratification of a
  higher authority. [Paras 7 and 8) [796-C-H; 797-A]

        Mansukhla/ vitha/das Chauhan v. State of Gujarat (1997)
    3 SCC 622; State (Anti Corruption Branch) Govt. of N.C. T.
    of Delhi and Anr. v. Dr. R.C. Anand and Anr. (2004) 4 sec
c 615, relied on
       3. The High Court called for the entire records. It
  perused the same. It noticed that several queries were
  raised but remained unanswered. The Departmental
D proceeding initiated against the respondent was
  dropped. The recommendations therefore were made not
  to grant sanction on the basis whereof the earlier order
  dated 15.12.2003 was passed. A finding of fact was
  arrived at by the High Court that no material was placed
E before the competent authority. Only a communication
  was received from the Director, Vigilance Bureau dated
  22.6.2004 wherein reference of the letter dated 26.5.2004
  was made. It, according to the High Court, was not a new
                                                                      -
  material. [Para 9) [797-B-D]
F      4. The First Information Report was lodged in 2001.
  The proceeding for grant of sanction was initiated in that
  year. Several queries were made to the Vigilance
  Department. Such queries had to be made as the
  respondent herein made a representation that he had
G been falsely implicated at the instance of some of the
  officers of the Vigilance Department who had set up a tout
  therefor. [Para 14) [799-B-C)                                   ~



          5. In terms of Clause (3) of Article 166 of the
H
               STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. v. MOHAMMED IQBAL 793
                                BHATTI
       ...
             Constitution of India all orders of the government must A
             be issued in the name of the Governor. Such orders,
             however, may be signed by any authorities specified in
             Rule 9 of the Rules of Business. By reason of either Rule
             8 or Rule 9 of the Rules of Business, no substantive
             power is conferred. The Rules of Executive Business B
             provided for three authorities before whom the records
             are to be placed, viz., Minister of the Department, Chief
             Minister and Cabinet It is now well-known that in the
      f      event it appears from the order and the records produced
             before the court, if any occasion arises therefor that even c
             if a valid order is not authenticated in terms of Clause (3)
             of Article 166 of the Constitution of India, the same would
             not be vitiated m law. Failure to authenticate an executive
             order is not fatal. The said provision is directory in nature
             and not mandatory. [Paras 19 and 20] [801-A-E]                D
                I. T. C. Bhadracha/am Paperboards and Another v.
      •'
             Manda/ Revenue Officer, A.P. and Others (1996) 6 SCC 634,
             relied on.

                   6. From a perusal of the order dated 15.12.2003, it is   E
             evident that before the Hon'ble Minister all the relevant
             records were produced. The Vigilance Department did
             not contend that the Hon'ble Minister did not have any
             jurisdiction. It accepted the said order. It was not
             challenged. Only when a new government came in, a              F
             request was made for reconsideration of the earlier order,
             as would be evident from the memo of the Secretary of
             the Department. It was, therefore, not a case where fresh
             materials were _placed before the sanctioning authority.
             No case, therefore, was made out that the sanctioning          G
             authority had failed to take into consideration a relevant
             fact or took into consideration an irrelevant fact. If the
--t          clarification sought for by the Hon'ble Minister had. been
             supplied, the same should have formed a ground for
                                                                            H
    794       SUPREME COURT REPORTS             (2009] 11 S.C.R.


A reconsideration of the order. [Paras 20 to 22] [801-F-H;
  802-A-B]

         7. The High Court in its judgment has clearly held,
    upon perusing the entire records, that no fresh material
    was produced. There is also nothing to show as to why
8
    reconsideration became necessary. On what premise
    such a procedure was adopted is not known. Application
    of mind is also absent to show the necessity for
    reconsideration or review of the earlier order on the basis
    of the materials placed before the sanctioning authority
c   or otherwise. [Para 23] [802-C-D]

                          Case law reference:
          (1997) 3 sec 622          relied on           Para 7

D         (2004) 4 sec 615          relied on           Para 8
          (1996) 6 sec 634          relied on           Para 20

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.

E
    4969 of 2009.

         From the Judgment & Order dated 22.12.2005 of the High
    Court of Judicature at Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil
                                                                     ..
    Writ Petition No. 16402 of 2004.

        Vivek K. Goyal, AAG, Pb., Kuldeep Singh (for Arun K.
F
    Sinha) for the Appellants.

        Jasdeep Singh Gill, Dinesh Verma, A.P. Mohanty for the
    Respondent.

G         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.

      2. The short question which arises for consideration in this
  appeal is as to whether the State has any power of review i~
H the matter of grant of sanction in terms of Section 197 of the
          STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. v. MOHAMMED IQBAL                      795
                     BHATTI [S.B. SINHA, J.]

         Code of Criminal Procedure, 197.                                       A

              3. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute

              Respondent was working as Block Development and
         Panchayat Officer. A First Information Repiort was lodged
         against him on or about 6.9.2001 under Sections 7 and 13(2)            B
         of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Upon completion of
         investigation, the Vigilance Department sought for sanction from
,.;      the competent authority so as to enable it to prosecute the
         respondent. By an order dated 15.12.2002, grant of such
         sanction was refused. The matter, however, was placed before           c
         the competent authority once again and on or about 14.9.2004
         sanction to prosecute the respondent was granted. Questioning
         the legality and/or validity of the said order, the respondent filed
         a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
                                                                                D
              By reason of the impugned judgment, the said writ petition
 ;,
         was allowed opining that the State has no power of review and
         in any event, the impugned order could not have been passed
         as the State while passing its earlier order dated 15.12.2003
         has exhausted its jurisdiction.
                                                                                E
               4. Mr. Vivek K. Goyal, learned Additional Advocate
          General appearing on behalf of the appellants, would urge that
          the jurisdiction for grant of sanction being an administrative one,
        1
          the  State has the requisite power to review its earlier order. It
  "-      was urged that it is incorrect to contend that power once             F
          exercised stands exhausted.

             5. Mr. Jasdeep Singh Gill, learned counsel appearing on
        behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, urged that the order
        impugned in the writ petition having been passed by the State
                                                                                G
        on the same material, the said order was wholly illegal.
  ..,        6. The respondent is a public servant. The Governor of the
        State of Punjab is his appointing authority. He is, therefore, not
        removable from his office save by and with the sanction of the
        Government and in that view of the matter if he is accused in           H
    796        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2009] 11 S.C.R.


A   any offence alleged to have been committed by him while
    acting or purporting to act in discharging of his official duty,
    grant of prior sanction is imperative in character in terms of
    Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The
    power of the State, as is well known, is performed by an
8   executive authority authorized in this behalf in terms of the Rules
    of Executive Business framed under Article 166 of the
    Constitution of India insofar as such a power has to be
    exercised in terms of Article 162 thereof. Once a sanction is
    refused to be granted, no appeal lies thereagainst.

C         7. Although the State in the matter of grant or refusal to
    grant sanction exercises statutory jurisdiction, the same,
     however, would not mean that power once exercised cannot be
    exercised once again. For exercising its jurisdiction at a
     subsequent stage, express power of review in the State may
D    not be necessary as even such a power is administrative in
    character. It is, however, beyond any cavil that while passing
    an order for grant of sanction, serious application of mind on
    the part of the concerned authority is imperative. The legality
    and/or validity of the order granting sanction would be subject
E   to review by the criminal courts. An order refusing to grant
    sanction may attract judicial review by the Superior Courts.
    Validity of an order of sanction would depend upon application
    of mind on the part of the authority concerned and the material
    placed before it. All such material facts and material evidences
F   must be considered by it. The sanctioning authority must apply
    its mind on such material facts and evidences collected during
    the investigation. Even such application of mind does not appear
    from the order of sanction, extrinsic evidences may be placed
    before the court in that behalf. While granting sanction, the
G   authority cannot take into consideration an irrelevant fact nor
    can it pass an order on extraneous consideration not germane
    for passing a statutory order. It is also well settled that the
    Superior Courts cannot direct the sanctioning authority either
    to grant sanction or not lo do so. The source of power of an
H   authority passing an order of sanction must also be considered.
      STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. v. MOHAMMED IQBAL                     797
                 BHATTI [S.B. SINHA, J.]

"    [See Mansukh/a/ vitha/das Chauhan v. State of Gujarat                A
     [(1997) 3 sec 5221

          8. The concerned authority cannot also pass an order of
     sanction subject to ratification of a higher authority. [See State
     (Anti Corruption Branch) Govt. of N. C. T. of Delhi and Anr. v.      B
     Dr. R.C. Anand and Anr. [(2004) 4 SCC 615].

           9. The High Court called for the entire records. It perused
,.   the same. It noticed that several queries were raised but
     remained unanswered. The Departmental proceeding initiated
     against the respondent was dropped. The recommendations              c
     therefore were made not to grant sanction on the basis whereof
     the aforementioned order dated 15.12.2003 was passed. A
     finding of fact has been arrived at by the High Court that no
     material was placed before the competent authority. Only a
     communic;ation had been received from the Director, Vigilance        D
     Bureau dated 22.6.2004 wherein reference of the letter dated
     26.5.2004 was made. It, according to the High Court, was not
     a new material. In the aforementioned situation, the High Court,
     opined:
                                                                          E
         "Once the Government passes the order under Section 19
         of the Act or under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal
         Procedure, declining the sanction to prosecute the
         concerned official, reviewing such an order on the basis
         of the same material, which already stood considered,
                                                                          F
         would not be appropriate or permissible. The Government
         is expected to act consciously and cautiously while taking
         such serious decisions. The perusal of the record shows
         that pointed queries had been raised to be answered by
         the Vigilance Bureau but no answer was forthcoming nor
         any had been submitted subsequently which culminated             G
         into passing of the later order dated September 30, 2004.
         We refrain ourselves from mentioning the queries which
         had been raised but it would suffice to say that the queries
         were never answered at the relevant time when the order
         dated December 15. 2003 had been passed nor the same             H
    798        SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2009] 11 S.C.R.


A         was ever commented upon as no answers were placed
          before the competent authority for passing the impugned
          order dated September 30, 2004."

       10. The State of Punjab in exercise of its jurisdiction under
B Article 162 of the Constitution of India framed Rules of
  Executive Business. Pursuant to Rules 18 and 19 thereof, the
  Department of Rural Development and Panchayat made
  Standing Orders.

          11: Rules 8 and 9 of the said Rules read, thus:
c
          "8. All orders or instruments made or executed by or on
          behalf of the Government of the State of Punjab shall be
          expressed to be made or executed in the name of the
          Governor.
D         9.(1) Every order or instrument of the Government of the
          State of Punjab shall be signed either by a Secretary, ·an
          Additional Secretary, a Joint Secretary, a Deputy
          Secretary or an Under Secretary or such other officer as
          may be specifically empowered by the Governor in that
E         behalf and the signature so made shall be deemed to be
          the proper authentication of such order or instrument. .. "

       12. In terms of the said Rules as also the Standing Order,
  the Minister of Rural Development and Panchayats is the
F competent authority to grant or refuse to grant sanction, so far
  as the respondent is concerned.

        13. Before embarking on the rival contentions, we may also
  place on record that the Government of Punjab, Department of
  Vigilance had issued guidelines in terms whereof the grant of
G sanction by the Administrative Department may be refused;
  some of the provisions whereof read as under:

          "3. The cases should not be delayed at the level of
          administrative department when sent for prosecution
H         sanction. Generally, the cases should be decided with in
  STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. v. MOHAMMED IQBAL 799
             BHATTI [S.B. SINHA, J.]

     two months time from the date, the reference is made by        A
     the vigilance department.

      4. Although the grant or refusal of prosecution sanction is
      a matter within the sole discretion of the competent
   , .authority. However, the authority can refuse to grant         B
    ·prosecution sanction for reason such as ... "

     14. The First Information Report was lodged in 2001. The
proceeding for grant of sanction was initiated in that year.
Several queries were made to the Vigilance Depprtment. Such
queries had to be made as the respondent herein made a              C
representation that he had been falsely implicated at the
instance of some of the officers of the Vigilance Department
who had set up a tout tnerefor.

      15. The Hon'ble Minister noticed the said representation '': 0
and by an order dated 15.12.2003 refused to grant sanction,.·· ·-
stating:

    "3. After minutely going through the averments made in the
    representation submitted by the said officer the Hon'ble
    Minister issued order for submitted the file. After             E
    scrutinizing the fil~\by Hon'ble Minister it was found that
    the Vigilance Department has been unable to provide the
    clarification with regard to certain points as asked by the
    Panchayat Department from the Vigilance Department
    from which it is cleared that they did not want to submit       F
    the clarification and want the true facts remain hidden and
    not come to the fore. Therefore, in this ~ituation, the
    sanction to prosecution Sh. Bhatti by the Vigilance
    Department is refused."
                                                                    G
   The said order was signed by the Special Secretary,
Government of Punjab.

      16. Before us, however, it was contended that requisite
clarification was made by the Deputy Superintendent of Police.
Vigilance Bureau on 17.12.2002 stating:                             H
    800         SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2009] 11 S.C.R.


A         "Besides this Sh. Hans Raj Golden has no link with
          Vigilance Department. It is false that he is a tout of
          Vigilance Department."

       17. However, it is stated that with the change in the
  Government and after more than nine months of the said refusal
8
  to grant sanction, the Vigilance Department again approached
  the concerned Secretary for grant of sanction by a letter dated
  16.05.2004. The Deputy Secretary, Government of Punjab,
  Village Development and Panchayat Department by a letter
C dated 30.09.2004 addressed to the Deputy Secretary,
  Vigilance Bureau, stated as under:

          "On the above mentioned subject this department vide
          letter memo no. 6/37/2001-3 RDE-3/ 9925 dated
          15.12.2003 had refused to grant sanction for prosecution
D         of Sh. Mohammed Iqbal Bhatti.

          2. Vide your letter under reference you had again
          requested to grant sanction for prosecution of the
          concerned official in the case and after reconsidering the
          case, sanction for prosecution Sh. Mohammed Iqbal Bhatti,
E
          District Development and Panchayat Officer is granted ... "

         18. The Governor of Punjab in his order of sanction dated
    14.09.2004 recorded the prosecution case presumably as
    c0ntained in the First Information Report and opined:
F
          "Therefore, after perusing the above case police file,
          documents, challan and attached all the documents
          minutely the Rajya Pal Ji has become fully satisfied that
          the above Mohd. Iqbal D.D.P.O. Ferozepur during the
G         tenure of his service/ posting, have committed an offence
          u/s 7, 13(2) 88 P.C. Act."

       The said order was also signed by the Secretary,
    Government of Punjab, Rural Development and Panchayat
    Department.
H
      STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. v. MOHAMMED IQBAL                    801
                 BHATTI [S.B. SINHA, J.]

            19. The contention of the learned Additional Advocate A
      General for the appellants is that Rule 8 of the Rules of
      Business shall apply whereas according to the learned counsel
      for the respondent, Rule 9 thereof shall apply. In terms of Clause
      (3) of Article 166 of the Constitution of India all orders of the
      government must be issued in the name of the Governor. Such B
     ·orders, however, may be signed by any authorities specified
      in Rule 9 of the Rules of Business. By reason of either Rule 8
      or· Rule 9 of the Rules of Business, no substantive power is
      conferred. The RtJles of Executive Business inter alia provided
      for three authorities before whom the records are to be placed,    c
      viz., Minister of the Department, Chief Minister and Cabinet. It
      has not been contended that in terms of the Rules of Executive
      Business read with the Standing Order, the Minister of the
      Department concerned could not have refused to grant
      sanction. What is contended before us is that Rule 8 of the
                                                                         .D
      Rules of Business should have been complied with .
.l
          20. ifis'now well-known that in the event it appears from
     the order and the records produced before the court, ifany
     occasion arises therefor that even if a valid order is not
     authenticated in terms of Clause (3) of Article 166 of the          E
     Constitution of India, the same would not be vitiated in law.
     Failure to authenticate an executive order is not fatal. The said
     provision is directory in nature and not mandatory. [See I. T.C.
     Bhadrachalam Paperboards and Another v. Manda/ Revenue
     Officer, A.P. and Others (1996) 6 SCC 634]. From a perusal          F
     of the order dated 15.12.2003, it is evident that before the
     Hon'ble Minister all the relevant records were produced.

          21. ·The Vigilance Department did not contend that the
     Hon'ble Minister did not have any jurisdiction. It accepted the
                                                                         G
     said order. It was not challenged. Only when a new government
     came in, a request was made for reconsideration of the earlier
     order, as would be evident from the memo of the Secretary of
     the Department.

          22. It was, therefore, not a case where fresh materials were   H
    802       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2009] 11 S.C.R.


A placed before the sanctioning authority. No case, therefore, was
  made out that the sanctioning authority had failed to take into
  consideration a relevant fact or took into consideration an
  irrelevant fact. If the clarification sought for by the Hon'ble
  Minister had been supplied, as has been contended before us,
B the same should have formed a ground for reconsideration of
  the order. It is stated before us that the Government sent nine
  letters for obtaining the clarifications which were not replied to.

       23. The High Court in its judgment has clearly held, upon
C perusing the entire records, that no fresh material was
                                                                        •
  produced. There is also nothing to show as to why
  reconsideration bec~me necessary. On what premise such a
  procedure was adopted is not known. Application of mind is
  also absent to show the necessity for reconsideration or review
  of the earlier order on the basis of the materials placed before
D the sanctioning authority or otherwise.

       24. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in
  this appeal which is dismissed accordingly. However, in the
  facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order
E as to costs.

   D.G.                                         Appeal dismissed.