DEVENDRA S DOCTOR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has essentially challenged the action of refusal to accord sanction to prosecute the Special Judge of the Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, dated 3.2.2012, which decision is founded on the opinion of the learned Chief Justice of the High Court.

(2.) THE decision is challenged on three grounds. Firstly, the Competent Authority for considering the proposal to grant sanction to prosecute the Special Judge of the Special Court, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), ought to be the Governor. Thus, the proposal could not have been terminated on the basis of the opinion of the learned Chief Justice of the High Court. Secondly, the learned Chief Justice has formed the impugned opinion without directing any enquiry in respect of the complaint against the Special Judge. Thirdly, the impugned opinion of the learned Chief Justice is bereft of any reason and is one word – rejected.

(3.) HAVING considered the rival submissions, as regards the principal point raised in the writ petition, we find merits in the submission made by the learned Advocate General. The same is reinforced from the exposition of the Apex Court in the above said decisions.