The High Court quashed an approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, finding it was granted without application of mind, following a prior judgment covering the identical issue. The matter was remitted with liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law.
Order dated 04.01.2023 of respondent No.1 was quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WP No. 504 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 504 OF 2023 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
DR.DAKSHAYINI K., W/O VISHWANATH M.S., AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS WORKING AS LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU – 560 020.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SATISH K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.B.V.KRISHNA, AGA FOR R1; SRI B.B.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
WP No. 504 of 2023
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE R1 IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04.1.2023 (ANNEXURE J); QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04.01.2023 BEARING NO. CIAASUE 23 KEV 2019 ISSUED BY R1 (ANNEXURE- J) AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 04.01.2023, passed by respondent No.1 – the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, whereby, an approval is granted as required under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for conduct of proceedings against the petitioner.
WP No. 504 of 2023
considered an identical issue, the issue of application of mind by the competent authorities, when considering granting approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
4. This Court in W.P.No.200356/2021 disposed on
26.03.2021, has held as follows:
“13. The amendment dated 26.07.2018 introduced several changes to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. One such amendment was introducing Section 17A with an object of giving protection to public servants who have done or ordered or approved certain actions as public servants in the bonafide discharge of their official functions without any dishonesty or malafide intentions. The amendment in the form of this new Section was necessitated owing to certain unfortunate circumstances where even honest officers were prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 14. Since the marrow of the lis lies in consideration and interpretation of the newly introduced Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which was brought into force on 26.07.2018, Section 17A is extracted for the purpose of quick reference:
“17-A. Enquiry or inquiry or investigation of offences relatable to recommendations made or decision taken by public servant in discharge of official functions or duties.— (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 –
WP No. 504 of 2023
(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.”
In terms of the above extracted provision of law introduced by an amendment, no Police Officer shall conduct any enquiry or inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decisions taken by such public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties without the previous approval of the officer or authority concerned.
15. Clause (a) thereof provides that in case of public servant who is or was employed in connection with the affairs of the Union at the time when the offence alleged to have been committed, the previous approval of the Central Government shall be obtained. Clause (b) likewise provides that in case of a public servant who is or was an employee in connection with the affairs of the
WP No. 504 of 2023
State at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committee, the approval of the State Government shall be obtained before proceeding. Clause (c) provides that in case of any other person who comes within the definition of public servant previous approval of the competent authority to remove him from office at the time when the offence alleged to have been committee should be obtained. The narrative hereinabove cannot but indicate that the object of the Section was to protect public servants from malicious, vexatious or baseless prosecution. However, if enquiry into the circumstances in which the alleged administrative or official act was done by the public servant or where malfeasance committed by the public servant which would involve an element of dishonesty or impropriety is to be proceeded against, the approval of the competent authority is required.
16. In my considered view Section 17A and its purport must be observed with complete strictness bearing in mind public interest and protection available to such officers against whom offences are alleged, failing which many a time it would result in a malicious prosecution. Section 17A is clearly a filter that the prosecution must pass in order to discourage or avoid vexatious prosecution, though cannot be considered as a protective shield for the guilty, but a safeguard for the innocent. 17. The provision (supra) was also considered by the Apex Court in the case of YESHWANTH SINHA v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION reported in (2020) 2 SCC 338. The Apex Court though did not consider as to how the previous approval of the competent authority has to be taken, but considered the amendment and its importance in the following paragraphs:
"117. In terms of Section 17-A, no police officer is permitted to conduct any enquiry or inquiry or conduct investigation into any offence done by a public servant where the offence alleged is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by the public servant in discharge of his public functions without previous approval, inter alia, of
WP No. 504 of 2023
the authority competent to remove the public servant from his office at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed. In respect of the public servant, who is involved in this case, it is clause (c), which is applicable. Unless, therefore, there is previous approval, there could be neither inquiry or enquiry or investigation. It is in this context apposite to notice that the complaint, which has been filed by the petitioners in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 298 of 2018, moved before the first respondent CBI, is done after Section 17-A was inserted. The complaint is dated 4.10.2018. Para 5 sets out the relief which is sought in the complaint which is to register an FIR under various provisions. Paras 6 and 7 of the complaint are relevant in the context of Section 17-A, which read as follows:
“6. We are also aware that recently, Section 17-A of the Act has been brought in by way of an amendment to introduce the requirement of prior permission of the Government for investigation or inquiry under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
7. We are also aware that this will place you in the peculiar situation, of having to ask the accused himself, for permission to investigate a case against him. We realise that your hands are tied in this matter, but we request you to at least take the first step, of seeking permission of the government under Section 17- A of the prevention of corruption Act for investigating this offence and under which, "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."
(Emphasis supplied)
118. Therefore, the petitioners have filed the complaint fully knowing that Section 17-A
WP No. 504 of 2023
constituted a bar to any inquiry or enquiry or investigation unless there was previous approval. In fact, a request is made to at least take the first step of seeking permission under Section 17-A of the 2018 Act. Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 298 of 2018 was filed on 24.10.2018 and the complaint is based on non-registration of the FIR. There is no challenge to Section 17-A. Under the law, as it stood, both on the date of filing the petition and even as of today, Section 17-A continues to be on the statute book and it constitutes a bar to any inquiry or enquiry or investigation. The petitioners themselves, in the complaint, request to seek approval in terms of Section 17-A but when it comes to the relief sought in the writ petition, there was no relief claimed in this behalf.
119. Even proceeding on the basis that on petitioners' complaint, an FIR must be registered as it purports to disclose cognizable offences and the Court must so direct, will it not be a futile exercise having regard to Section 17-A. I am, therefore, of the view that though otherwise the petitioners in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 298 of 2018 may have made out a case, having regard to the law actually laid down in Lalita Kumari [Lalita kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1: (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524], and more importantly, Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, in a review petition, the petitioners cannot succeed. However, it is my view that the judgment sought to be reviewed, would not stand in the way of the first respondent in Writ Petition (Criminal) No.298 of 2018 from taking action on Ext. petition-1, complaint in accordance with law and subject to first respondent obtaining previous approval under Section 17-A of the prevention of Corruption Act.’’
The Apex Court has considered the importance of previous approval of the competent authority in the afore-extracted judgment.
18. Section 17A casts an obligation of application of mind on the part of the Competent Authority in three
WP No. 504 of 2023
situations. The Section makes it clear that no officer shall conduct any enquiry or inquiry or investigation without previous approval. Therefore, the approving authority will have to look into the materials, apply its mind in all the three contingencies i.e., enquiry or inquiry or investigation. Though, enquiry and inquiry are often used interchangeably, there exists a difference between the two. Etymologically, the source of both enquiry and inquiry could be the same as ‘en’ is derived from French and ‘in’ is from Latin. Inquiry has a formal and official ring to it. Enquiry is informal and can be unofficial. Enquiry could even mean, to question; Inquiry is a formal investigation; investigation is a search. Therefore, the act casts an obligation of application of mind upon the authority to consider whether approval is sought for an enquiry, inquiry or an investigation. It becomes imperative for the authority to apply its mind to what is brought before it, as application of mind is the bedrock of any order that an authority passes, failing which, it would be contrary to the principles of natural justice, as nonapplication of mind is in itself violative of principles of natural justice.
19. Application of mind by an authority is demonstrable only in the order that the authority makes, for the order to demonstrate application of mind by the authority, it must contain the reasons, as recording of reasons in an order is the only way that one can construe such application of mind. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker, to the controversy in question and the decision arrived at. Reason and application of mind are impregnable for an order to sustain the scrutiny of law, be it administrative or quasi judicial. Reasons in every circumstance need not be elaborate, but nevertheless should bear application of mind. The case at hand and the order impugned will have to be tested on the anvil of the mandate of the statute, the intent behind its enactment and the rule of application of mind.
20. The afore-narrated facts and events are not in dispute. Government of Karnataka had issued a general circular through the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms directing all departments that they should not indiscriminately refer cases in the first
WP No. 504 of 2023
instance to the ACB where allegations are made against the officials. Specific directions were given in the general circular to the departments for internal scrutiny of allegations and take necessary permission from the competent authority in the event reference to ACB is necessitated. The circular dated 24.08.2016 was issued by Government even before the amendment to the Prevention of Corruption Act introducing section 17A came about. The circular dated 24.08.2018 reads as follows:
“P£ÁðlPÀ ¸À PÁðgÀ À
¸ÀASÉå:¹D¸ÀÄE/ 217/ ¸ÉïÉÆÃAiÀÄÄ/ 2016 PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¸ÀaªÁ®AiÀÄ, §ºÀĪÀĺÀrUÀ¼À PÀlÖqÀ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 24.08.2016.
¸ÄvÀ ÆÛÃ¯É É
«µÀAiÀÄ: ¨sÀæµÁÖZÁgÀ ¤UÀæºÀ zÀ¼ÀPÉÌ vÀ¤SÉUÁV ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀ»¸ÀĪÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ E¯ÁSÉUÀ¼ÀÄ C£ÀĸÀj¸À¨ÉÃPÁzÀ PÀæªÀÄUÀ¼À PÀÄjvÀÄ.
G¯ÉèÃR: ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå:¹D¸ÀÄE/14/¸ÉïÉÆÃAiÀÄÄ/
2016, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 14.03.2016.
**** ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå:¹D¸ÀÄE/ 14/ ¸ÉïÉÆÃAiÀÄÄ/ 2016, ¢£ÁAPÀ:
14.03.2016 gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ gÁdåzÀ°è ¨sÀæµÁÖZÁgÀ vÀqÉ C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄ, 1988 £ÀÄß ¥ÀjuÁªÀÄPÁjAiÀiÁV eÁjUÉ vÀgÀ®Ä ºÁUÀÆ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀévÀAvÀæªÁV vÀ¤SÉ £ÀqɸÀ®Ä MAzÀÄ ¥ÀævÉåÃPÀ ¨sÀæµÁÖZÁgÀ ¤UÀæºÀ zÀ¼ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀÈf¸À¯ÁVzÉ.
WP No. 504 of 2023
(¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ªÀÄÄRå PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðAiÀĪÀgÀ ¸ÀÆZÀ£É ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ)
¸À»/(¥À®è« DPÀÄgÀw) ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ G¥À PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð, ¹§âA¢ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DqÀ½vÀ ¸ÀÄzsÁgÀuÉ E¯ÁSÉ, (eÁUÀÈvÀ «¨sÁUÀ) UÉ,
¸ÀAPÀ®£Á¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå¥ÀvÀæ «¨sÁUÀ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ-ªÀÄÄA¢£À ¸ÀAaPÉAiÀÄ°è ¥ÀæPÀn¸À®Ä ºÁUÀÆ 200 ¥ÀæwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß MzÀV¸À®Ä (ªÀÄÄR ¥ÀvÀæzÉÆA¢UÉ)."
The case of the petitioners ought to have been at least considered in terms of the Circular.
21. The complainant-Smt. M.H. Vijayalakshmi lodges three complaints simultaneously to three different authorities viz., first one to the 1st respondent-Government; the second one to the Karnataka Lokayukta and the third one to the ACB. On receipt of the complaint, the Lokayukta takes the inquiry and submits its report on 21.06.2019 holding that the allegations made by Smt.Vijayalakshmi against the petitioners are unsubstantiated, general in nature and without any documentary proof. This report is during the pendency of the other two complaints - one before the Government and the other before the ACB.
22.On the complaint pending before the Government, the Hon'ble Chief Minister issues a general direction on 07.09.2019 to conduct a statewide enquiry into the irregularities in the implementation of Krishi Bhagya Scheme between the years 2014 and 2018. The complainant, feeling victorious after the State-wide enquiry that was ordered by the Hon'ble Chief Minister, communicates a letter to the competent authority seeking withdrawal of the complaint that was given to the ACB. The withdrawal of the complaint reads as follows:
“ gÀªÀjUÉ,
WP No. 504 of 2023
ªÀiÁ£Àå DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ, PÀȶ E¯ÁSÉ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ.
ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉ,
«µÀAiÀÄ: 2016-17jAzÀ 2018-19£Éà ¸Á°£À ªÀgÉUÉ PÀȶ ¨sÁUÀå AiÉÆÃd£É AiÀÄrAiÀÄ°è£À J¯Áè WÀlPÀUÀ¼À CrAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ £ÀÆgÁgÀÄ PÉÆÃn ¸À©ìr ºÀt ®¥ÀmÁ¬Ä¹gÀĪÀ CªÀåªÀºÁgÀzÀ zÀÆgÀÄ Cfð »A¥ÀqÉAiÀÄÄwÛgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ.
G¯ÉèÃR: £À£Àß zÀÆgÀÄ CfðUÀ¼À ¢£ÁAPÀ: 01/06/2019.
F ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ vÀªÀÄä°è PÉÆÃgÀĪÀÅzÉãÉAzÀgÉ £Á£ÀÄ ²æêÀÄw JªÀiï.ºÉZï.«dAiÀÄ®QëöäÃ, ¥Áèmï £ÀA.33E¸ï.©.L. PÁ¯ÉÆä, ºÀ¼Éà eÉêÀVð gÀ¸ÉÛ, PÀ®§ÄgÀV EzÀÄÝ, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 01/06/2019gÀAzÀÄ PÀȶ E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ PÀȶ ¨sÁUÀå AiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄrAiÀÄ°è£À J¯Áè WÀlPÀUÀ¼À CrAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ £ÀÆgÁgÀÄ PÉÆÃn ¸À©ìr ºÀt ®¥ÀmÁ¬Ä¹gÀĪÀ CªÀåªÀºÁgÀzÀ vÀ¤SÉ £ÀqɸÀ®Ä PÉÆÃj zÀÆgÀÄ CfðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹zÉ.
¸ÀzÀj £Á£ÀÄ ¸À°è¹zÀ zÀÆgÀÄ CfðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁ£Àå ªÀiÁr ¸ÀzÀj £À£Àß zÀÆgÀÄ CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß »£É߯ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄßlÄÖPÉÆAqÀÄ, ¸À£Áä£Àå ªÀÄÄRå ªÀÄAwæUÀ¼ÀÄ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁgÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ AiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄ WÀlPÀUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ªÀw¬ÄAzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄUÀæ vÀ¤SÉUÉ 2014-15£Éà ¸Á°¤AzÀ 2017-18£Éà ¸Á°£À ªÀgÉUÉ ªÀiÁ£Àå ªÀÄÄRå PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðUÀ¼ÀÄ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁgÀ gÀªÀjUÉ DzÉò¹gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ £À£Àß ºÉÆÃgÁlPÉÌ dAiÀÄ UÀ½¹zÀAvÁVzÉ.
DzÀÝjAzÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÉà £À£Àß zÀÆgÀÄ CfðAiÀÄ°è£À CA±ÀUÀ¼À CªÀåªÀºÁgÀzÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄUÀæ vÀ¤SÉ PÉÊUÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¥ÀævÉåÃPÀªÁV £À£Àß zÀÆgÀÄ CfðAiÀÄ PÀÄjvÀÄ vÀ¤SÉ CªÀ±ÀåPÀvÉ E®è JAzÀÄ ¨sÁ«¹ ¸ÀzÀj £À£Àß zÀÆgÀÄ CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß »A¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆüÀÄîwÛzÉÝãÉ.
ªÀAzÀ£ÉUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ,
EAw vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹,
¸À»/(²æêÀÄw JA.ºÀZï. «dAiÀÄ®QëöäÃ)
The withdrawal of the complaint was filed stating to the effect that the complainant was satisfied with the action of Hon'ble Chief Minister directing State-wide enquiry.
23. Based upon the direction of the Hon'ble Chief Minister an Enquiry Committee was constituted and a
WP No. 504 of 2023
comprehensive enquiry report was filed by the Enquiry Committee which also contained a report pertaining to the implementation of Krishi Bhagya Scheme in Gulbarga District that there was no irregularity committed by the officers. Therefore, the petitioners were tacitly exonerated by the Enquiry Committee.
24. During the pendency of consideration of the report submitted by the Enquiry Commission to the Hon'ble Chief Minister, the ADGP of the ACB, based on an earlier complaint given by the complainant-Smt. Vijayalakshmi who had unequivocally withdrawn her complaint and notwithstanding such withdrawal, communicates a letter to the 1st respondent forwarding the complaint and seeking previous permission/ approval as obtaining under Section 17A of the Act read with the General Circular dated 14.03.2016 (supra).
25. On the communication dated 19.10.2020, the competent authority grants prior permission/approval as obtaining under Section 17A of the Act on 3.02.2021 reading as follows:-
“ P£ÁðlPÀ ¸À PÁgÀ zÀ £À qÀ ĪÀ ½UÀ ¼À ÄÀ
NzÀ¯ÁVzÉ: C¥ÀgÀ ¥ÉÆÃ°Ã¸ï ªÀĺÁ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, ¨sÀµÁÖZÁgÀ ¤UÀæºÀ zÀ¼À, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀ ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå: J¹©/PÉÃAPÀ/FªÀ/PÀ®§ÄgÀV/C«/29/2019 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 19.10.2020.
*****
¥æ¸ÁÛªÀ £À É
ªÉÄÃ¯É NzÀ¯ÁzÀ C¥ÀgÀ ¥ÉÆÃ°Ã¸ï ªÀĺÁ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁV ¥ÉÆðøï C¢üÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ (PÉÃAzÀæ ¸ÁÜ£À), ¨sÀµÁÖZÁgÀ ¤UÀæºÀ zÀ¼À, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, EªÀgÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è ²æêÀÄw JA.J¸ï.«dAiÀÄ®QëöäÃ, ¥sÁèmï £ÀA.33, J¹âL PÁ¯ÉÆä, ºÀ¼Éà eÉêÀVð gÀ¸ÉÛ, PÀ®§ÄgÀV EªÀgÀÄ 2016-17 jAzÀ 2018-19£Éà ¸Á°£ÀªÀgÉUÉ PÀȶ ¨sÁUÀå AiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄrAiÀÄ°è ªÀiÁrzÀ CPÀæªÀÄUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É PÀ®§ÄgÀV f¯ÉèAiÀÄ PÀȶ E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÞ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉƼÀÄîªÀAvÉ ¥ÉÆÃ°Ã¸ï ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ, ¨sÀæµÁÖZÁgÀ ¤UÀæºÀ zÀ¼À ¥ÉÆðøï oÁuÉ, PÀ®§ÄgÀV, E°è zÀÆgÀÄ ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
WP No. 504 of 2023
F zÀÆjUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ vÀ¤SÉ PÉÊUÉƼÀî®Ä ¥ÉÆðøï G¥Á¢üPÀëPÀgÀÄ, ¨sÀæµÁÖZÁgÀ ¤UÀæºÀ zÀ¼À, F±Á£Àå ªÀ®AiÀÄ, PÀ®§ÄgÀV EªÀgÀÄ ²¥sÁgÀ¸ÀÄì. ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. CzÀgÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ C¥ÀgÀ ¥ÉÆÃ°Ã¸ï ªÀĺÁ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀ PÀbÉÃj¬ÄAzÀ 2016-17 jAzÀ 2018-19gÀ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è PÀvÀðªÀå ¤ªÀð»¹gÀĪÀ ºÁUÀÆ PÀȶ ¨sÁUÀå AiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄrAiÀi°è ªÀiÁrzÀ CPÀæªÀÄUÀ¼À PÀÄjvÀAvÉ D¥ÁzÀ£É EgÀĪÀ PÀ®§ÄgÀV f¯ÉèAiÀÄ PÀȶ E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ F PɼÀPÀAqÀ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÞ «ZÁgÀuÉ/vÀ¤SÉ PÉÊUÉƼÀî®Ä ¨sÀæµÁÖZÁgÀ ¥Àæw§AzsÀPÀ PÁAiÉÄÝ, 1988 gÀ PÀ®A 17(J) gÀr ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉÊ: ¹D¸ÀÄE 14 ¸ÉïÉÆÃAiÀÄÄ 2016 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 14.03.2016 gÀ£ÀßAiÀÄ ¥ÀƪÁð£ÀĪÀÄw ¤ÃqÀĪÀAvÉ PÉÆÃjgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
ªÉÄÃ¯É w½¹zÀ »£É߯ÉAiÀÄ°è, PÀȶ ¨sÁUÀå AiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄrAiÀÄ°è ªÀiÁrzÀ CPÀæªÀÄUÀ¼À PÀÄjvÀAvÉ D¥ÁzÀ£É EgÀĪÀ PÀ®§ÄgÀV f¯ÉèAiÀÄ PÀȶ E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÞ vÀ¤SÉ PÉÊUÉƼÀî®Ä ¸ÀPÀëªÀÄ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ C£ÀĪÀÄw CªÀ±Àå«gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå: ¹D¸ÀÄE 14 ¸ÉïÉÆÃAiÀÄÄ 2016. ¢£ÁAPÀ 14.03.2016gÀ DzÉñÀzÀ°è£À PÀArPÉ-5gÀ°è “¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ £ËPÀgÀ£ÀÄ vÀ£Àß C¢üPÀÈvÀ PÁAiÀið¤ªÀðºÀuÉAiÀÄ°è PÉÊUÉƼÀÄîªÀ ¤zsÁðgÀ CxÀªÁ ²¥sÁgÀ¸ÀÄìUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÞ ¨sÀæµÁÖZÁgÀ ¤UÀæºÀ zÀ¼ÀªÀÅ £ÉêÀÄPÁw ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ ¥ÀƪÁð£ÀĪÀÄw E®èzÉà vÀ¤SÉ ¥ÁægÀA©ü¸À®Ä CªÀPÁ±À«gÀĪÀÅ¢®è” JAzÀÄ DzÉò¸À¯ÁVzÉ. DzÀÝjAzÀ F PɼÀPÀAqÀ DzÉñÀ.
¸PÁðgÀ zÀ DzÀ Ã±É ¸À ASÀ Ê: É AGRI-AGS/40/2020, ¨AUÉ ¼À ÆgÀ Ä, ¢£ÁAPÀ : 03.02.2021À
¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ°è «ªÀj¹gÀĪÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼À »£É߯ÉAiÀÄ°è, 2016-17 jAzÀ 2018-19gÀ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è PÀvÀðªÀå ¤ªÀð»¹gÀĪ ºÁUÀÆ F CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è PÀȶ ¨sÁUÀå À AiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄrAiÀÄ°è ªÀiÁrzÀ CPÀæªÀÄUÀ¼À PÀÄjvÀAvÉ D¥ÁzÀ£É EgÀĪÀ PÀ®§ÄgÀV f¯ÉèAiÀÄ PÀȶ E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ F PɼÀPÀAqÀ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÞ vÀ¤SÉ PÉÊUÉƼÀî®Ä ¨sÀæµÁÖZÁgÀ ¥Àæw§AzsÀPÀ PÁAiÉÄÝ, 1988 gÀ PÀ®A 17(J) gÀqÉ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå: ¹D¸ÀÄE 14 ¸ÉïÉÆÃAiÀÄÄ 2016 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 14.03.2016gÀ DzÉñÀzÀ°è£À PÀArPÉ5gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ vÀ¤SÉ PÉÊUÉƼÀî®Ä ¨sÀæµÁÖZÁgÀ ¤UÀæºÀ zÀ¼ÀPÉÌ C£ÀĪÀÄw ¤Ãr DzÉò¹zÉ.
WP No. 504 of 2023
PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå¥Á®gÀ DzÉñÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è,
¸À»/-03/02/2021
(eÉÆÃ£ï ¥ÀæPÁ±ï gÉÆÃræUÀ¸ï) ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¢üãÀ PÁAiÀiðzÀ²ð, PÀȶ E¯ÁSÉ (¸ÉêÉUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀªÀÄ£ÀéAiÀÄ)
EªÀjUÉ,
A cursory perusal at the order dated 3.02.2021 granting prior approval/permission for commencement of any of the three contingencies narrated hereinabove unmistakably reveals that it bears no application of mind. The complaint itself was withdrawn by the complainant when the Hon'ble Chief Minister directed State-wide enquiry which had also submitted its report on 23.01.2020 exonerating the officials including the petitioners and the letter of permission was sought after 9 months of submission of the report by the Enquiry Committee which was constituted by the Hon'ble Chief Minister. Without looking into any of the facts narrated hereinabove, an order under Section 17A is passed which is cryptic, bald and absolutely laconic and cannot stand the scrutiny of law.
26. The formation of opinion by the statutory authority while granting prior permission under Section 17A should reflect application of mind with reference to the material available on record. The provision is akin to the recording of reasons while granting prior permission
WP No. 504 of 2023
under Section 19 of the Act. The bedrock of these provisions are to avoid or discourage malicious and vexatious prosecutions. In the teeth of the aforenarrated facts, the order granting prior approval, impugned in the writ petition, would, without a shadow of a doubt result in a vexatious prosecution against the petitioners. The order impugned falls foul of the intent and purport of Section 17A. Therefore, the order impugned loses its legal legs to stand as it is ex-facie illegal.
27. In terms of the narrative hereinabove what remains to be considered is whether the matter will have to be remitted back to the hands of the competent authority to reconsider the order of prior approval by recording cogent reasons. But, a subsequent development to the order impugned would hold the hands of this Court to submit the petitioners to a further rigmarole of proceedings. The Government in the Department of Agriculture has issued a communication on 1.03.2021 accepting the report of the Inquiry Committee constituted by the Hon'ble Chief Minister dated 23.01.2020 and closing the proceedings on all concerned. The communication dated 01.03.2021 reads as follows:-
PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ
¸ÀASÉå: AGRI/-AML/42/2019 PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¸ÀaªÁ®AiÀÄ, §ºÀĪÀĺÀrUÀ¼À PÀlÖqÀ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 01.03.2021. EªÀjAzÀ: ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¥ÀgÀ ªÀÄÄRå PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðUÀ¼ÀÄ, PÀȶ E¯ÁSÉ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ.
EªÀjUÉ, DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ, PÀȶ E¯ÁSÉ, ±ÉõÁ¢æ gÀ¸ÉÛ, PÉ.Dgï.¸ÀPÀð¯ï, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ.
ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉ,
WP No. 504 of 2023
«µÀAiÀÄ: PÀȶ ¨sÁUÀå AiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄ C£ÀÄzÁ£ÀzÀ°è £ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀ ªÁå¥ÀPÀ CªÀåªÀºÁgÀUÀ¼À §UÉÎ ¸ÀªÀÄUÀæ vÀ¤SÉ £ÀqɸÀĪÀ §UÉÎ..
G¯ÉèÃR: ¤ªÀÄä ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå:GPÀȤ/PÀȶ ¨sÁUÀå/vÀ¤SÉ/ 2019-20 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 23.01.2020.
ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, G¯ÉèÃTvÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ vÀ¤SÁ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹zÉ. 2014-15£Éà ¸Á°¤AzÀ 2017-18£Éà ¸Á°£ÀªÀgÉUÉ PÀȶ ¨sÁUÀå AiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄ C£ÀÄzÁ£ÀzÀ°è £ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀ ªÁå¥ÀPÀ CªÀåªÀºÁgÀUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ vÀ¤SÁ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀÄgÀ¸ÀÌj¹, ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄPÁÛAiÀÄUÉƽ¸À¯ÁVzÉ.
F «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ¹éÃPÀÈwªÁUÀĪÀ CfðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤AiÀĪÀiÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ ¥Àj²Ã°¹ ¤ªÀÄä ºÀAvÀzÀ°èAiÉÄà CfðzÁgÀ¤UÉ »A§gÀºÀ ¤ÃqÀ®Ä CUÀvÀå PÀæªÀÄ ªÀ»¸ÀĪÀAvÉ vÀªÀÄä£ÀÄß PÉÆÃgÀ®Ä ¤zÉÃð²¸À®ànÖzÉÝãÉ.
(ªÀiÁ£Àå ªÀÄÄRåªÀÄAwæAiÀĪÀjAzÀ C£ÀĪÉÆâ¸À®ànÖzÉ)
vÀªÀÄä £ÀA§ÄUÉAiÀÄ, ¸À»/01.03.2021. (¦.¸ÀvÀå¨sÁªÀÄ)
¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¢üãÀ PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð, PÀȶ E¯ÁSÉ (AiÉÆÃd£É)
Therefore, when Government itself has accepted the report and closed all the proceedings against all concerned concerning Krishi Bhagya Scheme for the years 2014-15 to 2017-18 during which the petitioners were also functioning at Gulbarga, it would be unjust to remit the matter back to the competent authority to reconsider the matter, but it cannot preclude the Government in taking any action in the event it becomes necessary in accordance with law, which would not become a tool of harassment against the petitioners.”
In the light of the issue in the lis being covered by the afore-extracted order passed by this Court in W.P.No.200356/2021, on all its fours, the subject petition
WP No. 504 of 2023
stands disposed, in the very same terms that is ordered in the
aforesaid writ petition. Therefore, the following:
ORDER
Pending interlocutory application/s, if any, is disposed, as
a consequence.
Sd/JUDGE
nvj List No.: 2 Sl No.: 40
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the approval granted under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was vitiated for non-application of mind?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.P.No.200356/2021Followed¶25
Yeshwanth Sinha v. Central Bureau of InvestigationReferred¶17
YESHWANTH SINHA v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION reported in (2020) 2 SCC 338 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Dr.Dakshayini K.
The State of Karnataka
The Additional Director General of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha
M.Nagaprasanna
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
