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.) The learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents has opposed this petition. According to him, it is completely devoid of merits. Relying on the decisions of the Apex Court in A.R. Antulay vs. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak & Anr., 1984 2 SCC 500, T. Lakshmi Narasimha Chari vs. High Court of A.P. & anr., 1996 5 SCC 90, Registrar (Administration), High Court of Orissa, Cuttack vs. Sisir Kanta Satapathy (dead) by LRs & anr., 1999 7 SCC 725 and Yoginath D. Bagde vs. State of Maharashtra & anr., 1999 7 SCC 739, he contends that the opinion of the learned Chief Justice on the proposal for grant or non-grant of sanction against the Judge of the subordinate Court is binding on the Competent Authority. The learned Chief Justice having opined that the proposal for grant of sanction deserves to be rejected, nothing more needs to be and could be done in the matter. As regards the second contention, he submits that the said ground has not been specifically taken in the writ petition. Further, the learned Chief Justice, at this stage, is not supposed to make enquiry. For, the proposal for grant of sanction to prosecute the Judge of the subordinate Court is placed before the learned Chief Justice only after due enquiry is made, as per the governing practice. As regards the third contention, he submits that even this ground is conspicuously absent in the writ petition. He submits that merely because the petitioner appears in person, does not mean that the law of pleadings can completely be ignored. Further, it is well established position that no reason is required to be noted in the sanction order passed by the Competent Authority; and applying the same analogy, even in the opinion recorded by the learned Chief Justice, no reason is required to be stated to justify the rejection of the proposal.