Dismissed

Sri. Ramesh D. Kattimani S/O Dhareppa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Jul 2012WP/81917/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two writ petitions challenging orders granting sanction to prosecute petitioners. The High Court held that the Government lawfully reviewed and granted sanction after considering fresh material collected by the Lokayukta police which was not considered in the earlier refusal order. The petitions were dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions are dismissed, and all contentions are kept open.

Sri. Ramesh D. Kattimani S/O Dhareppa Vs the State of Karnataka — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶3

CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA

¶4

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JULY 2012

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.N. NAGAMOHAN DAS

¶7

WRIT PETITION Nos. 81917-81918/2012 C/W.

¶8

WRIT PETITION Nos. 82654-82655/2012 (GM-RES)

¶9

W.P. No. 81917-81918/2012

¶10

BETWEEN :

¶11

Sri. RAMESH D KATTIMANI S/O. DHAREPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD SUB-DIVISION R/A. M-II-95, ADARSHA NAGAR BIJAPUR – 586 103.

¶12

Sri. AMARAPPA IRAPPA NAGOOR S/O. IRAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD SUB-DIVISION R/A.H.No. 19, K.C. NAGAR SHOLAPUR ROAD BIJAPUR – 586 103.

¶13

… PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY Sri. M S BHAGAT & RAVI PATIL, ADVS.)

¶15

¶16

AND :

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS PORTS AND INLAND WATER AND TRANSPORT VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶18

THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE LOKAYUKTHA POLICE STATION BIJAPUR – 584 101.

¶19

… RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY Sri. MANVENDRA REDDY, AGA, FOR R-1 Sri. SYED HABEEB, ADV., FOR R-2)

¶21

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.05.2012 (ANNEXURE A ) AND ETC.

¶22

W.P. Nos. 82654-82655/2012

¶23

BETWEEN :

¶24

Sri. DHANYAKUMAR BHEEMARAYA BIRADAR S/O. BHEEMARAYA BIRADAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O. No. 144, BASAVA NILAYA JAMMANAKATTI LAYOUT NIMBARGI COLONY ATHANI ROAD, BIJAPUR.

¶25

¶26

Sri. PRAKASH S/O. MARTAND RAO KULKARNI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/A. PWD QUARTERS MANGALPET BIDAR DIST., BIDAR.

¶27

… PETITIONERS

¶28

(BY Sri. M S BHAGWAT & RAVI PATIL, ADVS.)

¶29

AND :

¶30

THE CHIEF ENGINEER COMMUNICATION AND BUILDING (SOUTH), P.W.D., K R CIRCLE BANGALORE.

¶31

THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA REP.BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE LOKAYUKTHA POLICE STATION BIJAPUR.

¶32

… RESPONDENTS

¶33

(BY Sri. MANVENDRA REDDY, AGA, FOR R-1 Sri. SYED HABEEB, ADV., FOR R-2)

¶34

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.06.2012 ANNEXURE A AND ETC.

¶35

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING

¶36

O R D E R

¶37

In these writ petitions the petitioners have prayed for a writ in the

¶38

nature of certiorari to quash the orders at Annexure A granting sanction to

¶39

prosecute them.

¶40

¶41

A complaint against the petitioners was lodged with the respondent No. 2 - Lokayukta. The Lokayukta police investigated the matter and submitted a report to the Government requesting to sanction permission to prosecute the petitioners under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The respondent No. 1 - Government by an order dated 01.02.2012 refused to grant sanction to prosecute the petitioners. Again the respondent No. 2 - Lokayukta requested the Government to review its earlier order and to grant leave to prosecute the petitioners. Now under the impugned orders at Annexure A respondent No.1 - Government granted sanction to prosecute the petitioners by reviewing their earlier order. Hence, these writ petitions.

¶42

Heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire writ papers.

¶43

Sri. Bhagawat, learned counsel for the petitioners contend that in

¶44

the absence of any fresh material it is not open for the respondent No. 1 Government to review its earlier order rejecting sanction to prosecute the petitioners. In support of this contention learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Nishant Sareen, (2010) 14 SCC 527. The relevant paragraphs for the purpose of this case are 11, 12 and 13 and they read as under:

¶45

¶46

“11. This Court in Bhatti case when noticed the opinion of the High Court which was recorded as follows: (SCC p.96, para 9)

¶47

“9. … ‘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 official concerned, reviewing such an order on the basis of the same material, which already stood considered, would not be appropriate or permissible.’ “

¶48

While affirming the above opinion of the High Court this Court held in paras 20 and 21 of the Report as under:

¶49

“20. It was, therefore, not a case where fresh materials were 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, the same should have formed a ground for reconsideration or review of the earlier order on the basis of the materials placed before the sanctioning authority or otherwise.”

¶50

It is true that the Government in the matter of grant or refusal to grant sanction exercises statutory power and that would not mean that power once exercised cannot be exercised again or at a subsequent stage in the absence of

¶51

¶52

express power of review in no circumstance whatsoever. The power of review, however, is not unbridled or unrestricted. It seems to us a sound principle to follow that once the statutory power under Section 19 of the 1988 Act or Section 197 of the Code has been exercised by the Government or the competent authority, as the case may be, it is not permissible for the sanctioning authority to review or reconsider the matter on the same materials again. It is so because unrestricted power of review may not bring finality to such exercise and on change of the Government or change of the person authorised to exercise power of sanction, the matter concerning sanction may be reopened by such authority for the reasons best known to it and a different order may be passed. The opinion on the same materials, thus, may keep on changing and there may not be any end to such statutory exercise.

¶53

In our opinion, a change of opinion per se on the same materials cannot be a ground for reviewing or reconsidering the earlier order refusing to grant sanction. However, in a case where fresh materials have been collected by the investigating agency subsequent to the earlier order and placed before the sanctioning authority and on that basis, the matter is reconsidered by the sanctioning authority and in light of the fresh materials an opinion is formed that sanction to prosecute the public servant may be granted, there may not be any impediment to adopt such a course.”

¶54

¶55

Keeping in view the law declared by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision it is necessary to examine the fact situation in the present case. A perusal of the order dated 01.02.2012 refusing to grant sanction to

¶56

prosecute the petitioners specifies that reliance was placed on a report submitted by the Chief Engineer, Dharwad, dated 11.07.2008 and another report submitted by the Superintending Engineer, Gulbarga division dated 21.08.2011. On the basis of these two reports the respondent No. – 1 Government noticed that there was no financial loss to the Government and the works entrusted are all completed without any blemish. These two reports referred to in the earlier orders are not part of the Lokayukta report. By considering the material outside the Lokayukta report the respondent No. – 1 Government passed the earlier order refusing to grant sanction to prosecute the petitioners. Considering the documentary evidence which are not part of the Lokayukta report and refusing to grant sanction is illegal and unjust. Realising the mistake committed in the earlier order the respondent No. – 1 Government has now reviewed the earlier order and the same is permissible under law and I find no justifiable grounds to interfere with the same. In the present order the respondent No. – 1 Government placed reliance on the documents collected by the Lokayukta and also the statement of witnesses recorded by them. With reference to the documentary evidence and the oral evidence contained in the Lokayukta report the Government found that there is a prima facie case to prosecute

¶57

¶58

the petitioners in accordance with law. In the circumstances the impugned order granting sanction to prosecute the petitioners do not call for interference.

¶59

For the reasons stated above, the writ petitions are hereby

¶60

dismissed. All contentions are kept open.

¶61

Sd/JUDGE.

¶62

LRS.

Sri. Ramesh D. Kattimani S/O Dhareppa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Ramesh D. Kattimani S/O Dhareppa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri B B Manoj Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Raza Ali Khan Vs General Manager (Personnel)

Sri Bidranbika Vidya Samsthe Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Eramma D/O Gundayya Swamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Jayashree W/O Sharnappa Chandreddy Vs the Assistant Commissioner, Riachur

K.Jaleel Ahmed S/O Late K.M. Hajee Mastan Anr. Vs the Deputy Commissioner Raichur Ors.