DILBAG SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a Patwari, is aggrieved by the order dated July 5, 2002 passed by the District Collector, Gurdaspur. By this order the petitioner's Appointing Authority has granted sanction for his prosecution in the case under Sections 7, 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner alleges that after the trap had been laid and the vigilance officers had conducted the raid, a preliminary inquiry had been held. After the inquiry, the Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur, had passed an order dated June 4, 2001 holding that it was not "a fit case for granting approval for prosecution ............". Thus, the successors in office could not have reviewed the order and granted sanction especially when nothing new had come on the record. On these premises, the petitioner prays that the order dated July 5, 2002, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-9 with the writ petition, be quashed.

(2.) MR . Sanjay Majithia, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur, had found that "the trap was motivated". Thus, sanction for prosecution was declined. There is nothing on record to show that the finding recorded by the Deputy Commissioner was wrong. Thus, the District Collector had no jurisdiction to review the order and to grant sanction.

(3.) MR . Majithia submits that the authority had no jurisdiction to review the order passed by his predecessor.