Karnataka Lokayuktha v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Feb 2026WP/787/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Refusal of sanction to prosecute; Section 19 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; application of mind by sanctioning authority; quashing of sanction-refusal order; Karnataka Lokayuktha v. State of Karnataka and Ganeshappa; WP No. 787 of 2018; Articles 226 and 227; Section 13(1)(d)(ii)(iii) r/w 13(2) PC Act; State of Maharashtra v. Mahesh G. Jain (2013) 8 SCC 119; Vijay Rajmohan v. CBI (2023) 1 SCC 329; Kodagu District Nirmithi Kendra; Rs.59,00,000/- release.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; impugned order dated 07.09.2016 (Annexure-C) quashed; petitioner at liberty to take such steps and proceed further against Respondent No.2 in accordance with law. ¶158

Karnataka Lokayuktha Vs the State of Karnataka — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed; impugned order dated 07.09.2016 (Annexure-C) quashed; petitioner at liberty to take such steps and proceed further against Respondent No.2 in accordance with law.

¶158

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition is maintainable when the petitioner seeks only quashing of the sanction-refusal order (Annexure-C) without any consequential relief. +3 more

¶82

Court's answer

The objection that the petition was not maintainable for want of consequential relief did not stand in the way of consideration: the petitioner having sought quashing of the impugned order at Annexure-C and no consequential relief, allowing the petition as sought (without remand) served the petitioner's purpose.

¶96

Ratio / Principle

Except for a cryptic statement, there is nothing in the impugned order indicating any application of mind by Respondent No.1 to the specific allegations against Respondent No.2; the sanction-refusal order therefore fails the requirement of relevant material considered and independent application of mind by the sanctioning authority, as set out in State of Maharashtra Vs. Mahesh G. Jain (para 14) and Vijay Rajmohan Vs. CBI (para 18).

¶144

Key takeaways

The averments in paragraph Nos.7, 8 and 11 of the writ petition (purported concessions of 'mini trial'/appellate conduct) cannot be read in isolation from paragraph Nos.5 and 15 alleging non-application of mind, more particularly as the extracted contents of the impugned order indicate otherwise.ratio¶148
The 'pick and choose'/discriminatory-conduct objection raised by Respondent No.2's counsel cannot be countenanced, since a final report has been filed in Spl C.C.No.108/2024 against the private accused and W.P.No.8173/2020 challenging the sanction-refusal in respect of Sri. K. Krishnappa is pending.ratio¶151

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka HC (M.G.S. Kamal J), 16.02.2026, WP No. 787 of 2018 (GM-RES) under Articles 226 and 227: Karnataka Lokayuktha challenged the State's Order No.SKE/369/PKC/2015 dated 07.09.2016 (Annexure-C) declining sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to prosecute Respondent No.2 (Sri. Ganeshappa, formerly Project Coordinator, Integrated Tribal Development Project, Kodagu) for offences under Section 13(1)(d)(ii)(iii) read with Section 13(2) of the Act, arising from release of Rs.59,00,000/- on 31.01.2011 to Kodagu District Nirmithi Kendra. Held: apart from a cryptic statement, the impugned order disclosed no application of mind by the sanctioning authority, contrary to the principles in State of Maharashtra Vs. Mahesh G. Jain (2013) 8 SCC 119, para 14 and Vijay Rajmohan Vs. CBI (2023) 1 SCC 329, para 18; the 'pick and choose' objection (non-action against Sri. K. Krishnappa) was untenable given Spl C.C.No.108/2024 and pending W.P.No.8173/2020; absence of consequential relief did not render the petition unmaintainable. Annexure-C quashed; petitioner at liberty to proceed against Respondent No.2 in accordance with law.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:6229 WP No. 787 of 2018

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 787 OF 2018 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA M.S.BUILDINGS, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY SRI SON OF SRI.MOHITH SAHADEV, THE POLICE INSPECTOR.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. VENKATESH S ARBATTI.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶15

SRI.GANESHAPPA SON OF MAJOR, AGED MAJOR, OCCUPATION: DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DIRECTOR OF SCHEDULE TRIBE AND SCHEDULE CASTE DIRECTORATE, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1;

¶18

SRI. P.S. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSELL FOR JAYANTH DEV KUMAR ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:6229 WP No. 787 of 2018

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY R1 UNDER ORDER No.SKE/369/PKC/2015 DATED 07.09.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-C; AWARD THE COST OF THIS WRIT PETITION.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

This petition is by the petitioner-Karnataka Lokayuktha, aggrieved by the Order dated 07.09.2016, produced at Annexure-C to the extent of declining grant of sanction to prosecute, respondent No.2 herein for the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d)(ii)(iii) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1988').

¶27

Brief facts of the case are that, the respondent No.1State by Order dated 27.03.2007 had released a sum of Rs.1,20,00,000/- for the purpose of carrying out renovation work of a tank called Doddareshme Haddlu situated at Tribal

¶28

Colony categorized as a Reserve Forest. That originally the work was entrusted to the Engineering Division of Kodagu Zilla

¶29

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:6229 WP No. 787 of 2018

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Panchayath. The Engineering Division could not carry out the work on account of certain technicalities and financial reasons. Consequently, the project was transferred to the Kodagu District Nirmithi Kendra, Kushalnagar by letter dated 06.10.2008. In the meanwhile, a complaint came to be filed by one Smt. Kenchmada Saritha Poonacha in PCR No.1/2011 against 1. Sri. K.G. Boppaiah, 2. Sri. A.S. Raja Rao, 3. Sri. N. Krishnappa, 4. Sri. Yoga Narasimha. The matter was referred under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C to the Lokayuktha Deputy Superintendent of Police, Madikere, for investigation.

¶33

That after registration of the case in Crime No.8/2011

¶34

and during the investigation, petitioner secured credible information against respondent No.2, which was necessary and was sufficient for prosecuting respondent No.2 under the Act, 1988. Respondent No.2 during the said period, was the Project Coordinator and also acted as a Treasurer who was vested with the responsibility of managing and releasing the funds for execution of work. That as per the investigation and the material ascertained, respondent No.2 on 31.01.2011 had released a sum of Rs.59,00,000/- to said Kodagu District

¶35

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:6229 WP No. 787 of 2018

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

Nirmithi Kendra without proper enquiry and without sufficient documents for release of the funds. The said amount has been misappropriated, by the persons were accused in PCR No.1/ 2011. That it was further ascertained that a sum of Rs.39,50,000/- were shown towards the expenditure of the project by Kodagu District Nirmithi Kendra, Kushalnagar, though no work was done at all and the remaining sum of the Rs.19,50,000/- remained unaccounted. It was thus clear that the entire amount of Rs.59,00,000/-, which was released by respondent No.2 towards funds were misappropriated. That respondent No.2 was thus involved in the criminal conspiracy along with other members who were arrayed as accused. As such, it was alleged that respondent No.2 had committed offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d)(ii)(iii) of the Act, 1988.

¶39

That after completion of investigation, the

¶40

Investigation Officer has come to the conclusion that respondent No.2 has committed the offence under Section 13(1)(d)(ii)(iii) along with certain persons namely; 1. Sri. K.G. Ramesh, Member of Kodagu District, Zilla Panchayath,

¶41

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:6229 WP No. 787 of 2018

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Madikere 2. Sri. A.S. Raja Rao, Member of Legislative Assembly, Madikere 3. Sri. N. Krishnappa, the Chief Executive Officer 4. Sri. Yoga Narasimha, the Project Manager of Kodagu District Nirmithi Kendra. Based on which, Investigation Officer has prepared the final report on 15.06.2015.

¶44

That a request was sent to respondent No.1, who is the Sanctioning Authority in relation to respondent No.2, to accord sanction for prosecution as per the letter dated 17.08.2015, produced at Annexure-B. Respondent No.1 passed the impugned order dated 07.09.2016 as per Annexure-C rejecting the proposal for grant of sanction. That thereafter petitioner once again made a request to respondent No.1 by letter dated 07.01.2017 as per Annexure-D, for grant of sanction. In order to prosecute respondent No.2, even the said application came to be rejected by respondent No.1 by letter dated 16.03.2017 as per Annexure-E. Being aggrieved by the same, present petition.

¶45

Statement of objection is filed by respondent No.2, contending inter-alia;

¶46

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:6229 WP No. 787 of 2018

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

(a). That the petition and the reliefs as sought for were neither maintainable nor entertainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The respondent No.2 joined the services of the State as District Social Welfare Officer on 06.04.2006. He was posted as the Project Coordinating officer, integrated Tribal Development Project, Kodagu District by notification dated 25.06.2010. He reported to his duties on 01.07.2010. Respondent No.2 was on sanctioned leave from 13.09.2010 to 26.09.2010 and he worked thereafter till 09.09.2011 and upon his promotion as the Deputy Director, he was transferred to Bengaluru by notification dated 08.09.2011.

¶50

(b). That the Directorate of Scheduled Tribes Development had issued a letter dated 30.06.2010. According, administrative approval for the work to be commenced and for payment to be from the money sanctioned by Order dated 27.03.2007 passed by the Government of Karnataka sanctioning of Rs.2,30,00,000/-. Accordingly, the Work Order dated 16.12.2010 came to be issued to the Kodagu District Nirmithi Kendra, an undertaking dated 29.12.2010 was executed.

¶51

¶52

NC: 2026:KHC:6229 WP No. 787 of 2018

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

(c). That Kodagu District Nirmithi Kendra by its

¶55

communication dated 20.01.2011, requested for release of advance amount to commence the work on site. Accordingly, on approval of the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayath, Kodagu, Rs.59,00,000/- was ordered to be released as advance amount by cheque dated 31.01.2011. That sanction of 50% advance amount was in accordance with the instruction issued by the Communication dated 07.11.2009, issued by the Director and the Joint Secretary of the Rural Development and Panchayathraj. That the action taken in terms of the instruction of the authority cannot be considered as an offence, by a Communication dated 22.11.2011, the Assistant Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation sub-division has communicated the status/stage of the work as on the date of said communication.

¶56

(d) That long after, respondent No.2 relieved from his post one Smt. Kenchmada Saritha Poonacha, Member of Kodagu Zilla Panchayat, Madikere has submitted a private complaint on 08.12.2011 before the Principal Session Judge, (Special Judge), Madikeri against 1. Sri. K.G. Bopaiah, Member of Kodagu District, 2. Sri. N. Krishnappa, the Chief Executive

¶57

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:6229 WP No. 787 of 2018

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

Officer 3. Sri. Yoga Narasimha, the Project Manager of Kodagu District Nirmithi Kendra alleging that the accused mentioned therein, hatched a criminal conspiracy to get the said project allocated to Kodagu District Nirmithi Kendra, despite knowing fully well that the project was not technically feasible.

¶60

(e). That upon reference made, A case in FIR No.8/2011 has been registered. There is no allegation in the said complaint against respondent No.2. That after the completion of investigation, to the shock and dismay of the respondent No.2, he has been arrayed as accused No.4 in the Final Report as Annexure-A, submitted by petitioner-Lokayuktha charged with the offences under Section 13(1)(d)(ii)(iii) of the Act, 1988.

¶61

(f). That in response to the request made by the petitioner, respondent No.2 has given a detailed reply. On well-considered order dated 07.09.2016 produced in AnnexureC, the respondent No.1-State Government has refused to grant the sanction to the respondent No.2. That one sanction to prosecute has been refused by the Competent Authority, there is no probability of petitioner-Lokayuktha to rescind the request

¶62

¶63

NC: 2026:KHC:6229 WP No. 787 of 2018

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

unless new material had come on record. There is no scope for review of the order rejecting the sanction.

¶66

(g). It is further contented that respondent No.1-State Government had also rejected sanction in respect of one Sri. N. Krishnappa, the then Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat. That according to the information received by the respondent No.2, the said order has attained finality. That the actions of respondent No.2 are bonafide, without any malaise or with any criminal intent. As such, sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶67

Sri. Venkatesh S. Arbatti, learned counsel appearing

¶68

for the petitioner-Lokayuktha, taking this Court through the records submitted that the principal ground on which the petition is filed is the non-application of mind by the respondent No.1-State in the impugned order as per Annexure-C, declining sanction to prosecute the respondent No.2 as required under

¶69

Section 19 of the Act, 1988. He refers to the allegation specifically made against the respondent No.2 as extracted at Sl.No.4 of the report as per Annexure-D (Page Nos.40 and 41

¶70

of the writ petition). He also refers to the impugned order Annexure-C, wherein the respondent No.1-State has extracted

¶71

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:6229 WP No. 787 of 2018

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

the response given by the respondent No.2. Thereafter, he

¶74

refers to the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the respondent No.1-State and submits that except extracting the allegation made by the petitioner-Lokayuktha, a response issued by the respondent No.2 and a cryptic statement of respondent No.1 not finding anything wrong against the respondent No.2, nothing is forthcoming to the impugned order. He submits that the Authority is required to apply its mind. He relies upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court

¶75

in the case of Superintendent of Police Vs. Deepak Chowdhary and others reported in (1995) 6 SCC 225, and in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Mahesh G. Jain reported in (2013) 8 SCC 119, referring to paragraph Nos.4 and 5 and paragraph No.14 respectively, he submits that the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of granting sanction has not been adhered to. Therefore, he seeks allowing of the petitioner.

¶76

In response, learned Senior Counsel Sri. P.S. Rajagopal

¶77

appearing for Sri. Jayanth Dev Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 referring to the reliefs sought for in the writ

¶78

11 -

¶79

NC: 2026:KHC:6229 WP No. 787 of 2018

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

petition, at the outset submits that the petitioner-Lokayuktha

¶82

has merely sought for portion of the impugned order at Annexure-C and there is no consequential relief sought thereon. As such, he submits that the petition without any consequential relief would be an exercise in futility, warranting no consideration and liable to be dismissed in limine . He further referring to the grounds urged in the writ petition at paragraph Nos.7, 8 and 11 submits that even according to the petitioner, there was irrelevant explanation and that there was a mini trial conducted by the respondent-Authority under the guise of application of mind while examining the aspect of sanction and that the respondent No.2 could not have acted as upon authority. Pointing out to these averments in paragraph Nos.7, 8 and 11, he emphatically submits that the petitioner has taken contrary stand, while on the one hand the petitioner is claiming that there was non application of mind and the other has explained as to how the respondent-authorities have applied their mind. He submits that the writ petition being one without substance and is not maintainable. As regards the merits of the allegation, he further referring to objections paragraph Nos.2(iv), he submits that the petitioner-Lokayuktha

¶83

12 -

¶84

NC: 2026:KHC:6229 WP No. 787 of 2018

¶85

HC-KAR

¶86

has adopted pick and choose method in that Sri. K. Krishnappa,

¶87

the then Chief Executive Officer, against whom identical allegations were made. In the very same case has been left out and the respondent No.1 had declined sanction even in respect to Sri. K. Krishnappa and the petitioner-Lokayuktha has not taken any action against him. An authority like petitionerLokayuktha is not expected to act in a discriminatory manner. On the merits of the allegations, he takes this Court though the documents produced at Annexure-R2 series and submits that the respondent No.2 was not at all placed in the position at the time when the amount was admittedly sanctioned, much prior to he coming into the post as a Project Coordinator. He submits that respondent No.2 has reported to the duties on and from 01.07.2010 and he worked only till 08.09.2011 till he was transferred on his promotion. Nothing significant has transpired between the period, which he held the Office, except execution of an undertaking by the Project Manager, Kodagu District Nirmithi Kendra, Kushalanagar as per Annexure-R2/6 on 29.12.2010. That, said single incident can under no circumstances constitute any corrupt act committed on the part of respondent No.2 warranting registration of a case and

¶88

13 -

¶89

NC: 2026:KHC:6229 WP No. 787 of 2018

¶90

HC-KAR

¶91

further grant of sanction for prosecution. That it is these aspects of the matter which have been elaborately considered by the respondent No.1-State in the impugned order, which has prima-facie found there being no material against the respondent No.2 for according the sanction and has come to just conclusion in rejecting the same. Therefore, he submits that the petitioner-Lokayuktha has not made out any case warranting interference at the hands of this Court. He also emphatically submits that even after passing of the impugned order, the petitioner-Lokayuktha had submitted a letter dated 07.01.2017, seeking reconsideration of the order of rejection, which also culminated in rejection by a communication of letter dated on 16.03.2017 as per Annexure-E, which has not been challenged. Even on the said account, the petition is required to be dismissed. In support of his submissions, he relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Mahesh G. Jain (Supra) as well as State of Orissa and another Vs. Mamata Mohanty reported in (2011) 3 SCC 436 on the point of relief not sought cannot be granted.

¶92

14 -

¶93

NC: 2026:KHC:6229 WP No. 787 of 2018

¶94

HC-KAR

¶95

Heard and perused the records.

¶96

With regard to objections raised on maintainability of the writ petition for the petitioner not seeking consequential relief, it is necessary to note that the petitioner, as already noted above, has sought for quashing of the impugned order at Annexure-C and has not sought for any consequential relief. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that mere quash of the petition is sufficient and there is no requirement of any consequential relief of remand of the matter or reconsideration of the matter. He refers to Section 19 of the Act, 1988 (Prior to its amendment) to submit that the person who is not holding the same designation/position as on the date of taking the cognizance in relation to such persons, sanction under Section 19 of the Act, 1988 is not required. Therefore, he submits that even if the petition is allowed as sought for, the purpose of petition will be served.

¶97

On the aspect of averments made in the petition, it is necessary to note though at paragraph Nos.7 and 8 of the writ petition, petitioner has averred that respondent No.1 has taken to consideration ''irrelevant explanation'', furnished by

¶98

15 -

¶99

NC: 2026:KHC:6229 WP No. 787 of 2018

¶100

HC-KAR

¶101

respondent No.2 and has conducted ''mini trial under the guise of application of mind while examining the aspect of sanction without understanding the scope of examination'' and that ''respondent No.1 has acted like a Appellate Authority'', the same cannot be read and extended to mean, that there was an admission on the part of the petitioner-Lokayuktha regarding application of mind on the part of respondent No.1 as required under law. Paragraph Nos.5 and 15 of the writ petition specifically alleged that the respondent No.1 not following principles and guidelines regarding the obligations of the sanctioning authority as enumerated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Mahesh G. Jain (Supra), which is relied upon by both the petitioner as well as the respondent No.2. Further, at paragraph Nos.12 and 15, it is contented that bare reading of the impugned order at Annexure-C would demonstrates complete non-application of mind by the respondent No.1.

¶102

Relevant at this juncture to refer to paragraph No.14 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State

¶103

16 -

¶104

NC: 2026:KHC:6229 WP No. 787 of 2018

¶105

HC-KAR

¶106

of Maharashtra Vs. Mahesh G. Jain (Supra), which reads as

¶107

under:

¶108

'' 14. From the aforesaid authorities the following principles can be culled out:

¶109

14.1. It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that the valid sanction has been granted by the sanctioning authority after being satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out.

¶110

14.2. The sanction order may expressly show that the sanctioning authority has perused the material placed before it and, after consideration of the circumstances, has granted sanction for prosecution.

¶111

14.3. The prosecution may prove by adducing the evidence that the material was placed before the sanctioning authority and its satisfaction was arrived at upon perusal of the material placed before it.

¶112

14.4. Grant of sanction is only an administrative function and the sanctioning authority is required to prima facie reach the satisfaction that relevant facts would constitute the offence.

¶113

14.5. The adequacy of material placed before the sanctioning authority cannot be gone into by the court as it does not sit in appeal over the sanction order.

¶114

14.6. If the sanctioning authority has perused all the materials placed before it and some of them have not been proved that would not vitiate the order of sanction.

¶115

14.7. The order of sanction is a prerequisite as it is intended to provide a safeguard to a public servant against frivolous and vexatious litigants, but simultaneously an order of sanction should not be construed in a pedantic manner and there should not be a hypertechnical approach to test its validity.''

¶116

It is also relevant at this juncture to paragraph No.18

¶117

of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay

¶118

17 -

¶119

NC: 2026:KHC:6229 WP No. 787 of 2018

¶120

HC-KAR

¶121

Rajmohan Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in

¶122

(2023) 1 SCC 329 , which reads as under:

¶123

''18. Sanction for prosecution of an employee of the Union under the PC Act would involve invocation of specific provisions of CrPC, the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as “the DSPE Act”), the PC Act, and the CVC Act, all of which constitute a unified scheme. The legal regime that encompasses the abovereferred statutes for matters concerning preliminary inquiry, investigation, sanction, and prosecution are well integrated and can be recounted as under:

¶124

18.1. Section 197 Cr.P.C provides a mandatory requirement of sanction for the prosecution of Judges, Magistrates, and public servants. While interpreting this provision, this Court has identified two principles, which are that, (a) there must be relevant material placed before the sanctioning authority before it takes a decision; and (b) the decision of the sanctioning authority must itself indicate that it had applied its mind before granting sanction. It is in this context that the judgment of this Court in Mansukhlal [Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, (1997) 7 SCC 622] must be understood [Section 197CrPC].

¶125

18.2. Section 19 of the PC Act also provides for a requirement of sanction before prosecution. The requirement of law for having relevant material placed before the sanctioning authority, as well as the independent application of mind by the said authority, applies with equal vigour to sanction under the PC Act. [Section 19, the PC Act].

¶126

In the light of the above position of law, it is relevant

¶127

to refer to the grounds specifically made out against the respondent No.2 as found at Sl.No.4 of the table on pages 40 and 41 are as under:

¶128

18 -

¶129

NC: 2026:KHC:6229 WP No. 787 of 2018

¶130

HC-KAR

¶131

��ೕ.ಎಂ.ಗ�ೇಶಪ�, �ೕಜ�ಾ ಇವರು 9�ಾಂಕ: 1-7-2010 �ಂದ 12-9-2010 ಮತು; 27ಸಮನ��ಾ��ಾ�, ಐ��, 9-2010 �ಂದ 9-9-2011 ರವ<ೆ=ೆ , �ೊಡಗು "#ೆ$ಯ, ಐ�� ಮ��ೇ� �ೊಡಗು "#ೆ$, %ಾ& ಇ#ಾ?ೆಯ&$ �ೕಜ�ಾ ಸಮನ��ಾ��ಾ��ಾ@ �ಾಯ) ಕತ)ವ+ ಉಪ--.ೇ)ಶಕರು, ಪ��ಷ1 -ವ)ABರುCಾ;<ೆ . ಇವರ ಅವ�ಯ&$ ಈ �ಾಮ=ಾ�ಗಳನುF ಸಮಪ)ಕGಾ@ ವಗ)ಗಳ ಕ#ಾ+ಣ ಅನುHಾ1ನ =ೊIಸುವ ಮತು; ಪ�ಗJ ವರ9 %ಾಗೂ ಹಣ L-�ೕಗ -.ೇ)ಶ�ಾಲಯ, 6ೆಂಗಳ7ರು. ಪ�Mಾಣ ಪತ�ಗಳನುF ಸ&$ಸುವ ಜGಾ6ಾN�ಯು ಇವರ.ಾN@ತು;. ಈ �ಾಮ=ಾ�ಯ&$ �ೊಡಗು -O)J �ೇಂದ�ದವರು ಸರ�ಾರ ಮತು; ಇ#ಾ?ಾ Pೕ#ಾ��ಾ�ಗಳQ -ಗ� ಪ�Bದ ಷರತು;ಗಳನುF �ಾಮ=ಾ�ಯ&$ Rಾ&ಸ.ೇ CಾಂJ�ಕ ಮಂಜೂ<ಾJಯನುF %ಾಗು ಅರಣ+ ಇ#ಾ?ೆಯ ಅನುಮJಯನುF ಪSೆದು�ೊಳT.ೇ ಇದNರೂ ಸ%ಾ ಇವUಗಳನುF ಸಮಪ)ಕGಾ@ ಪ��ೕ&ಸ.ೇ �ಾಮ=ಾ�ಯ ಸಂಬಂಧ �ೊಡಗು -O)J �ೇಂದ�ದ �ೕಜ�ಾ ವ+ವXಾYಪಕ<ಾದ ��ೕ.�ೕಗನರBಂಹ Xಾ�Oಯವ�=ೆ 9�ಾಂಕ: 31-1-2011 ರಂದು ರೂ. 59.00 ಲZ ಹಣವನುF ಮಂಜೂರು Mಾ�, ನಂತರ ಅವರುಗಳQ �ೈ=ೊಂಡ �ಾಮ=ಾ�ಗಳನುF ಆ@ಂ.ಾ=ೆ] �ೋ��ೊಳT.ೇ ಇರುವUದ�ಂದ �ೆ<ೆಯ �ಾಲುGೆಗಳQ ಅ^ವೃ9` ಆಗ.ೇ, �ಾ#ೆ �ೆಲಸಗಳನುF %ೊರತು ಪ�B ಅನಗತ+Gಾ@ದN ಹೂಳQ Cೆ=ೆಯುವ, ಜಂಗa ಕ�ಯುವ %ಾಗೂ �Gೆb Pಂb �ಾಮ=ಾ�ಗಳನುF -ವ)AB ರೂ. 39.50 ಲZಗಳನುF ವ+ಥ) ಖಚು) Mಾ�, ಸರ�ಾರ�ೆf ನಷ1/ ದುರುಪ�ೕಗ Mಾ� ರುವUದನುF %ಾಗು �ಾಮ=ಾ� ಸY@ತ=ೊಂಡ ನಂತರ ಈ Aಂ.ೆ gಡುಗSೆ =ೊಂ�ದN ರೂ. 59.00 ಲZಗಳ&$ �ಾಮ=ಾ�=ೆ ಖಚು) Mಾ�ರುವU.ಾ@ ಪ�JRಾ9ಸ#ಾ@ರುವ ರೂ. 39.50 ಲZಗಳನುF %ೊರತುಪ�B, �ಾಮ=ಾ�=ೆ L-�ೕಗGಾಗ.ೇ ಉI�ೆ�ಾ@ದN ರೂ. 19.50 ಲZಗಳನುF -O)J �ೇಂದ�9ಂದ GಾRಾಸುh ಸರ�ಾರ�ೆf ವ=ಾ)ವ�ೆ Mಾ�B�ೊಳTಲು �ಾವU.ೇ ಪ�Mಾiಕ %ಾಗು �ಾನೂ�ಾತjಕ ಕ�ಮಗಳನುF �ೈ=ೊಳT.ೇ, ಸದ� Xಾವ)ಜ-ಕ ಹಣವನುF -O)J �ೇಂದ�ದವರು ಇತ<ೆ ಉ.ೆNೕಶ�ಾf@ ಬಳB�ೊಂಡು ಹಣ ದುರುಪ�ೕಗGಾಗಲು ಅನುವU Mಾ��ೊ�1ರುವUದ�ಂದ ಕಲಂ: 13 (1) (�) (ii) (iii) ಭ�Hಾ1lಾರ ಪ�Jಬಂಧ ಅ�-ಯಮ 1988 �ೕCಾ+ ಅಪ<ಾಧ Gೆಸ@ರುವUದು ತ-?ೆmಂದ ದೃಡಪ�1ರುತ;.ೆ .

¶132

19 -

¶133

NC: 2026:KHC:6229 WP No. 787 of 2018

¶134

HC-KAR

¶135

This Court has perused the impugned order at Annexure-C, based on the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 to the extent to ascertain whether, there was indeed any application of mind by respondent No.1 in respect of aforesaid allegation made against respondent No.2. It is for this limited purpose the relevant portion of page Nos.6 and 7 of the said order providing purported reasoning and the operative portion are extracted hereunder:

¶136

''ಕ�ಾ)ಟಕ #ೋ�ಾಯುಕ; , ಮ��ೇ� , �ೊಡಗು "#ೆ$ ಇವರು ಸ&$Bರುವ ತ-?ಾ ವರ9 .ಾಖ#ಾJಗಳನುF %ಾಗೂ ಆRಾ9ತ ಅ��ಾ�ಯು Pೕ&ನಂCೆ -ೕ�ರುವ Lವರ�ೆಯನುF ಸೂZoGಾ@ ಅವ#ೋpಸ#ಾ@ �ೊಡಗು "#ೆ$ಯ Lೕ<ಾಜRೇqೆ Cಾಲೂ$pನ .ೊಡr<ೇHೆj ಹಡು$ �ೆ<ೆಯನುF ರೂ .120.00 ಲZ Gೆಚsದ&$ ಅ^ವೃ9` ಪSೆಸಲು 2006-07 �ೇ Xಾ&ನ&$ ಮುಖ+�ಾಯ)-ವ)ಹ�ಾ��ಾ� , "#ಾ$ ಪಂlಾಯt�ೊಡಗುರವರು ಪಂlಾಯt<ಾuಇಂ"-ಯ�ಂvLwಾಗ�ೆf ವABದುN , ಸುMಾರು 3 ವಷ)ಗಳQ ಕxೆದರೂ �ಾಮ=ಾ� Rಾ�ರಂ^ಸದ �ಾರಣ . ಸ�ಾ)ರದ �ಾಯ)ದ�) , ಸMಾಜ ಕ#ಾ+ಣ ಇ#ಾ?ೆ ಇವರು �ಾಮ=ಾ�ಯನುF ಪಂlಾಯt<ಾu ಇಂ"-ಯ�ಂv ಇ#ಾ?ೆmಂದ AಂಪSೆದು -O)J �ೇಂದ��ೆf ವAಸಲು ಆಡICಾತjಕಮಂಜೂ<ಾJ -ೕ�ರುCಾ;<ೆ ಅದರಂCೆ ಮುಖ+�ಾಯ)-ವ)ಹ�ಾ��ಾ� , "#ಾ$ ಪಂlಾಯt , �ೊಡಗು ಇವರು �ಾ�ಾ).ೇಶ -ೕ� �ಾಮ=ಾ�ಯನುF Rಾ�ರಂ^ಸಲು ಅಂ.ಾ"ನ yೇ . 50% ರಷು1 wಾಗದ ಅನು.ಾನ ರೂ . 59.00 ಲZಗಳನುF gಡುಗSೆ Mಾಡಲು �ೊಡಗು "#ಾ$ ಪಂlಾmJಯ ಮುಖ+�ಾಯ)-ವ)ಹ�ಾ��ಾ�ಯು -ೕ�ರುವ ಸೂಚ�ೆ Pೕ<ೆ=ೆ ಅಂ9ನ �ೕಜ�ಾ ಸಮನ��ಾ��ಾ� , ಐ . � . � . � . �ೊಡಗು "#ೆ$ ಮಡ�ೇ� ಇ&$ ಕತ)ವ+ -ವ)AಸುJ;ದN

¶137

20 -

¶138

NC: 2026:KHC:6229 WP No. 787 of 2018

¶139

HC-KAR

¶140

��ೕ ಎಂ . ಗ�ೇಶಪ� ಇವರು �ೕಜ�ಾ ವ+ವXಾYಪಕರು , -O)J�ೇಂದ� , �ೊಡಗು "#ೆ$ ಕುyಾಲನಗರ ಇವ�=ೆ lೆzನುF -ೕ� B�ೕಕೃJಯನುF ಪSೆ9ರುCಾ;<ೆ . ಈ ಪ�ಕರಣದ&$ ಆ<ೋ�ತ ಅ��ಾ��ಾದ ��ೕ ಎಂ . ಗ�ೇಶಪ� , ಅಂ9ನ �ೕಜ�ಾ ಸಮನ��ಾ��ಾ� . ಐ�� , �ೊಡಗು "#ೆ$ . ಮ��ೇ� ( %ಾ& ಪ�{ಾನ ವ+ವXಾYಪಕರು , Sಾ || g . ಆ| . ಅಂ6ೇಡf| ಅ^ವೃ9` -ಗಮ , 6ೆಂಗಳ7ರು ) ಇವರು �ಾವU.ೇ ತRೆ�ಸ@ಲ$9ರುವUದು ಕಂಡುಬರುತ;.ೆ . ಈ A�ೆF#ೆಯ&$ , ಸದ�ಯವರನುF ಅ^�ೕಜ�ೆ=ೊಳಪ�ಸ9ರಲು ಸ�ಾ)ರವU -ಧ)�B.ೆ . ಆದN�ಂದ , ಈ �ೆಳಕಂಡ ಆ.ೇಶ .

¶141

ಸ�ಾ)�ಆ.ೇಶಸಂ?+ೆ : ಸಕಇ 369 ಪಕXೇ 2015, 6ೆಂಗಳ7ರು , 9�ಾಂಕ : 07-092016

¶142

ಪ�Xಾ;ವ�ೆಯ&$Lವ�BರುವಅಂಶಗಳA�ೆF#ೆಯ&$ , ಭHಾ1lಾರ-ಮೂ)ಲ�ಾ �ಾ}N , 1988 gÀ PÀ®A 13 (1)( r )(ii) (iii) ºÁUÀÆ PÀ®A 406, 418, 420, 465 gÉ:« 34 L.¦.¹ ರ�ಯ&$ ಅಪರ ~&ೕ• ಮ%ಾ -.ೇ)ಶಕರು , ಕ�ಾ)ಟಕ #ೋ�ಾಯುಕ; , 6ೆಂಗಳ7ರು ಇವರು .ಾಖ&Bರುವ ಪ�ಕರಣ�ೆf ಸಂಬಂ�BದಂCೆ ಆ<ೋ�ತ<ಾದ ��ೕ ಎಂ . ಗ�ೇಶಪ� , ಅಂ9ನ�ೕಜ�ಾ ಸಮನ��ಾ��ಾ� , ಐ�� , ಮ��ೇ� , �ೊಡಗು "#ೆ$ %ಾ& ಪ�{ಾನ ವ+ವXಾYಪಕರು . Sಾ || g . ಆ| . ಅಂ6ೇಡf| ಅ^ವೃ9` -ಗಮ -ಯOತ , 6ೆಂಗಳ7ರು ಇವರನುF ಸZಮ �ಾ+�ಾಲಯದ&$ ಅ^�ೕಜ�ೆ=ೆ ಒಳಪ�ಸಲು ಭ�Hಾ1lಾರ -ಮೂ)ಲ�ಾ �ಾ}N 1988 ರ ಕಲಂ 19 (1) ( g ) ರನ�ಯ ಅ^�ೕಜ�ಾ ಮಂಜೂ<ಾJ-ೕಡಲು�ೋ�ರುವUದನುF ಸ�ಾ)ರವU -<ಾಕ�B.ೆ ".

¶143

Clearly, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel

¶144

for the petitioner except making the said cryptic statement, there is nothing indicating as to there being any application of mind by respondent No.1. Therefore, the averments made in paragraph Nos.7, 8 and 11 of the writ petition cannot be read in isolation to the averments made in paragraph Nos.5 and 15

¶145

21 -

¶146

NC: 2026:KHC:6229 WP No. 787 of 2018

¶147

HC-KAR

¶148

of the writ petition, more particularly when the contents of impugned order as extracted hereinabove indicate otherwise.

¶149

As regards, the other objections raised by the learned

¶150

Senior Counsel for the respondent No.2, with regard to petitioner adopting, pick and choose method. Learned counsel for the petitioner brings to the notice of the Court, that as against the private parties/accused in the aforesaid PCR No.1/2011, a final report has been filed in Spl C.C.No.108/2024 and as against rejection of sanction by the respondent No.1 in respect of Sri. K. Krishnappa, the then CEO, he submits that a writ petition in W.P.No.8173/2020, is filed and same is pending consideration.

¶151

On these aspects, the objection raised by the learned Senior counsel for the respondent No.2 also cannot be countenanced.

¶152

For the aforesaid reasons and analysis, following:

¶153

ORDER

¶154

(i) Petition is allowed .

¶155

22 -

¶156

NC: 2026:KHC:6229 WP No. 787 of 2018

¶157

HC-KAR

¶158

(ii) Impugned order dated 07.09.2016 as per Annexure-C is quashed.

¶159

(iii) Petitioner is at liberty to take such steps and proceed further against respondent No.2 in accordance with law.

¶160

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶161

RL/-

¶162

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

Issues for consideration

4 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the writ petition is maintainable when the petitioner seeks only quashing of the sanction-refusal order (Annexure-C) without any consequential relief.¶82
The court held
The objection that the petition was not maintainable for want of consequential relief did not stand in the way of consideration: the petitioner having sought quashing of the impugned order at Annexure-C and no consequential relief, allowing the petition as sought (without remand) served the petitioner's purpose.ratio¶96
2.
Whether Respondent No.1, as sanctioning authority under Section 19 of the Act, 1988, applied its mind to the specific allegations against Respondent No.2 in passing the impugned order declining sanction.¶68
The court held
Except for a cryptic statement, there is nothing in the impugned order indicating any application of mind by Respondent No.1 to the specific allegations against Respondent No.2; the sanction-refusal order therefore fails the requirement of relevant material considered and independent application of mind by the sanctioning authority, as set out in State of Maharashtra Vs. Mahesh G. Jain (para 14) and Vijay Rajmohan Vs. CBI (para 18).ratio¶144
3.
Whether the petitioner adopted an impermissible 'pick and choose' method by not pursuing Respondent No.2's co-accused Sri. K. Krishnappa, against whom identical allegations were made and whose sanction was likewise declined.¶82
The court held
The 'pick and choose'/discriminatory-conduct objection raised by Respondent No.2's counsel cannot be countenanced, since a final report has been filed in Spl C.C.No.108/2024 against the private accused and W.P.No.8173/2020 challenging the sanction-refusal in respect of Sri. K. Krishnappa is pending.ratio¶151
4.
Whether, given Section 19 of the Act, 1988 (prior to amendment) and Respondent No.2's designation, quashing the order alone without remand or reconsideration would serve the petitioner's purpose.medium confidence¶96

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order No.SKE/369/PKC/2015 dated 07.09.2016 (Annexure-C) of Respondent No.1 rejecting the proposal for grant of sanction to prosecute Respondent No.2 for offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d)(ii)(iii) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.¶44
Respondent No.1 - State of Karnataka (Sanctioning Authority) · 07.09.2016
Prior proceeding
State Order dated 27.03.2007 releasing Rs.1,20,00,000/- for renovation of tank Doddareshme Haddlu at Tribal Colony.¶27
Prior proceeding
Transfer of the project from Engineering Division, Kodagu Zilla Panchayath to Kodagu District Nirmithi Kendra, Kushalnagar by letter dated 06.10.2008.¶32
Prior proceeding
Private complaint PCR No.1/2011 filed by Smt. Kenchmada Saritha Poonacha against K.G. Boppaiah, A.S. Raja Rao, N. Krishnappa and Yoga Narasimha.¶32
Prior proceeding
Complaint referred under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C to the Lokayuktha Deputy Superintendent of Police, Madikere for investigation.¶32
Prior proceeding
Registration of the case as Crime No.8/2011.¶33
Prior proceeding
During investigation, material allegedly showed Respondent No.2 (then Project Coordinator and Treasurer) released Rs.59,00,000/- to Kodagu District Nirmithi Kendra without proper enquiry; the entire amount was alleged to have been misappropriated.¶38
Prior proceeding
Investigating Officer concluded Respondent No.2 committed the offence under Section 13(1)(d)(ii)(iii) along with other accused and prepared the final report on 15.06.2015.¶43
Prior proceeding
Request sent to Respondent No.1 (Sanctioning Authority) for sanction to prosecute, by letter dated 17.08.2015 (Annexure-B).¶44
Prior proceeding
Renewed request for sanction by letter dated 07.01.2017 (Annexure-D).¶44
Prior proceeding
Renewed application rejected by Respondent No.1 by letter dated 16.03.2017 (Annexure-E); per Respondent No.2's counsel this rejection was not separately challenged.¶44
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.2 arrayed as Accused No.4 in the Final Report (Annexure-A) submitted by the petitioner-Lokayuktha, charged under Section 13(1)(d)(ii)(iii) of the Act, 1988.¶60
Prior proceeding
Final report filed against the private parties/accused of PCR No.1/2011 in Spl C.C.No.108/2024.¶150
Prior proceeding
Writ petition W.P.No.8173/2020 filed against rejection of sanction for Sri. K. Krishnappa (then CEO, Zilla Panchayat); pending consideration.¶150

Karnataka Lokayuktha v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Lokayuktha v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Siddaramaiah Vs Sri Abdul Kareemsab

Mr K a Nasruddin Vs Sri Ahmed Jan

Smt Ramakka Vs Muni Byrappa @ N Ramaiah

N Lokesh Vs Agriculture Produce Market Committee

Mr Balaji Shanmuganath Vs Mr Mohammed Ali Asif Mehkri

M/S Swabhimani Souharda Credit Co. Opertive Ltd. Vs the Director