Allowed

Sadashiv Ambadasrao Gayake v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Sept 2009WP/545/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal writ petition, the petitioner challenged the acceptance of a sanction order by the Collector rejecting prosecution. The High Court held that the sanctioning authority must pass a reasoned order demonstrating application of mind. Since the impugned order was unreasoned, the Court set it aside and remanded the matter to the Collector within three months.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 30.5.2009 by the Collector is quashed and set aside; matter remanded to the Collector to pass a reasoned order within three months.

Sadashiv Ambadasrao Gayake Vs the State of Mah and Ors. — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.545 OF 2009

¶4

Sadashiv Ambadasrao Gayake Age 60 years, Occupation Agriculture, R/o Dinwada, Taluka Gangapur, District Aurangabad At present residing at Sai Nagar, N-6, Aurangabad. ... PETITIONER

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

The State of Maharashtra (Copy to be served on Public Prosecutor, High Court of Bombay, at Aurangabad)

¶7

City Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad, through its Police Inspector.

¶8

The Collector, Aurangabad.

¶9

Shri Anil s/o Panditrao Ghodake, Age 43 years, Occ. Service, R/o Mayur Park, B-3-2/1, Jalgaon Road, Harsul, Aurangabad.

¶10

Shri Shamrao s/o Khanduji Thorat, Age major, Occ. Service, Talathi Sajja Bhalgaon, Taluka and District Aurangabad. ... RESPONDENTS

¶11

¶12

Shri V.D. Sapkal, Advocate for the petitioner Shri S.D. Kaldate, A.P.P. for the State Shri P.S. Pawar, Advocate for respondent No.4. Shri R.S. Bihari, Advocate for respondent No.5.

¶13

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ.

¶14

DATED : 24th September, 2009.

¶15

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER PATIL, J.):

¶16

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties.

¶17

The petitioner filed complaint to the Police Station against respondent Nos.4 and 5, which was registered as Crime No. 26/2008, registered at City Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad. The respondent No.4 challenged the registration of F.I.R. in Criminal Application No.2856/2008 in the High Court. Shri Sapkal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Criminal Application was admitted by this Court and it was observed that investigation may proceed. However no coercive action was directed to be taken against the applicant therein without leave of the Court. Early hearing was also directed.

¶18

Shri Sapkal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the police completed the investigation and sought for sanction

¶19

¶20

from the Collector to prosecute respondent Nos.4 and 5. Learned A.P.P. submits that, by an order dated 30.5.2009, which is at Exhibit I to the petition, the Collector/ Collectorate rejected the sanction sought against the respondent Nos.4 and 5.

¶21

Shri Sapkal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the sanction order on the application seeking sanction ought to be brief reasoned order demonstrating application of mind on the part of the Collector concerned. In absence thereof, the order would be erroneous and is required to be set aside by this Court.

¶22

Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 and 5 submit that the Collector had applied his mind, considered the record and thereafter passed an order. Though the counsel submits that reasoning is not provided as desired by the petitioner, but on that ground alone the impugned order need not be set aside.

¶23

We find that in matters of seeking sanction, the authority dealing with the issue is required to pass reasoned order, may be in brief, but the same shall demonstrate application of mind of the authority concerned. The relevant record produced before the authority must be gone into, considered and thereafter by applying mind the decision is required to be taken by the authority concerned. This is an important and serious exercise of power which the sanctioning authority is called upon to do.

¶24

¶25

Obviously the impugned order is not reasoned one. On that ground alone, we are inclined to set aside that order and remand the matter back to the Collector, Aurangabad for passing a fresh order on the application for seeking sanction filed by the State authorities. We make clear here itself that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations made by the prosecution against the respondent Nos.4 and 5. While dealing with the application for sanction, the Collector/ Collectorate shall afresh consider the issue in accordance with the material placed before them and in accordance with law and pass a reasoned order.

¶26

The impugned order dated 30.5.2009, passed by the respondent No.3 is, therefore, quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Collector/ Collectorate, Aurangabad, who shall pass order accordingly in accordance with the observations made by us as above, within a period of three months from today. Rule made absolute in above terms. A.P.P. to communicate this order to the Collector/ Collectorate, Aurangabad.

¶27

Authenticated copy of this order be given to A.P.P.

Sadashiv Ambadasrao Gayake v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadashiv Ambadasrao Gayake v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikrant Shriram Jaiswal and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

The State of Mah Vs Dattatraya Alias Pintu Babbru Bhinge and Anr.

Laxman Pundlik Suvarnkar Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Abdul Riyaz Abdul Bashid Kazi Vs the State of Mah

The Maharashtra State Wakf Board Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sukhram Tarachand More Vs the State of Maharashtra