of seeking empanelment by leveling false and frivolous allegations against senior officers involved in the process of selection of eligible advocates. Though not open to question by the Petitioner, order dated 30.03.2021 is legally correct and justified. The Chief Secretary, who is the Competent Authority, had examined the material on record and concluded that the appointment of panel advocates was done on the basis of merit list prepared by the Selection Committee and there was no ground to grant prosecution sanction. In any case, the panel was for a term of 3 years and has lapsed by afflux of time. A civil writ petition being W.P.(C) 9606/2019, filed by some unsuccessful candidates, was dismissed by this Court on 10.11.2022. Mr. Lao also urges that Courts cannot sit in appeal over administrative decisions of the Executive while exercising powers of judicial review and what is open to examination is only the decision-making process. Petitioner is unable to point out any flaw in the process and has only made vague and unwarranted allegations, without any evidence. In this context, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, (1997) 7 SCC 622. It is also argued that Petitioner cannot call upon the Court to substitute the view of Chief Secretary and grant sanction and for this proposition reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Another v. Mohammed Iqbal Bhatti, (2009) 17 SCC 92 .
