AVINASH MATHUR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has come up for hearing upon the application filed by applicant Shanker Singh for impleading him as party Respondent in the matter. While filing reply to the application for impleading as party Respondent, it is pointed out by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that being the complainant of the criminal case, in which, prosecution sanction has been granted by the State Government which is under challenge in this writ petition, the applicant is not entitled to be impleaded as party because for granting prosecution sanction only competent authority has jurisdiction to apply its mind and to take decision whether sanction can be granted or not. In the case of the Petitioner, the prosecution sanction has been granted by the State Government for launching the prosecution against him and, that order is under challenge in this writ petition, in which, no other than the competent authority can take decision, there is no right left with the complainant to insist the competent authority to grant prosecution sanction.

(2.) After considering the objection to impleadment raised by the Petitioner, 1 am in full agreement with the contention raised by the Petitioner's counsel that the complainant-applicant is not entitled to be heard in this petition because criminal case was registered against the Petitioner upon his complaint and, after investigation, as per protection available to the Government employee under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 197, Code of Criminal Procedure the jurisdiction with regard to grant of prosecution sanction to prosecute government employee is to be exercised independently by the competent authority of the State Government. Therefore, the application filed by the complainant for impleading him as party in this writ petition is devoid of any merit because after filing the complaint, work of the complainant comes to end, therefore, application of the applicant is hereby rejected.

(3.) Another application has been filed under Article 226(3), Constitution of India for vacating the stay order granted by this Court dated 19.03.2010. During the course of arguments upon the application moved under Article 226(3), Constitution of India, it is submitted by both the parties that the matter may be heard finally.