Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Surendra Kumar S/O Shri Mahendra Kumar … vs State Of Rajasthan on 26 May, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:23229]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 172/2020
Raghav Singh Meena S/o Shri Raghuveer Singh Meena, Aged
About 35 Years, R/o 9/287 Malviya Nagar Jaipur Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Princle Secretary Urban
Development And Housing Department Secretariat Jaipur
Raj.
2. Director And Joint Secretary Of Raj., Local Bodies Govt.
Of Raj. G-3 Rajmahal Residency Area Criminal Line
Pahtak 22 Godam Jaipur Raj.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 130/2020
Surendra Kumar S/o Shri Mahendra Kumar, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Vill. Suraj Garh Dist. Jhunjhunu Presently Chairman
Nagar Palika Suraj Garh Dist. Jhunjhunu Raj.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principle Secretary Urban
Development And Housing Department Secretariat Jaipur
Raj.
2. Director And Joint Secretary Of Raj., Local Bodies
Government Of Raj. G-3 Rajmahal Residency Area
Criminal Line Phatak 22 Godam Jaipur Raj.
—-Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singodiya
Mr. Mahendra Kumar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudesh Saini, P.P.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA
Order
26/05/2026
(Uploaded on 16/06/2026 at 01:49:12 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/07/2026 at 12:17:38 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:23229] (2 of 16) [CRLW-172/2020]
1. Both the criminal writ petitions filed by the petitioners
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are arising out of one
criminal case and in both the petitions, challenge has been made
to the order of prosecution sanction on the same facts and,
therefore, both the petitions are being decided by this common
order.
2. The brief facts of the cases are that the petitioner,
Raghav Singh Meena, remained posted as Executive Officer, the
petitioner, Surendra Kumar, assumed the office as Chairman on
31.08.2015 of Municipal Board, Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunu. The
allegations against the petitioners are that the petitioners in
conspiracy with other persons, issued pattas at a lower rate than
the prevailing rate and by that they had caused huge loss to the
Government Exchequer and an F.I.R. No.310/2017 came to be
registered by the Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur, for the offence
punishable under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 467, 468 and 120-B of IPC.
3. The Investigating Agency after completion of the
investigation forwarded a draft format for prosecution sanction to
the competent authority, i.e., Director and Joint Secretary, Local
Self Department. The prosecution sanction authority, i.e., Director
and Joint Secretary, Local Self Department accorded prosecution
sanction vide separate orders dated 07.02.2020, so as to
prosecute the petitioners.
4. The petitioners by filing the present criminal writ
petitions have challenged the order of prosecution sanction issued
to prosecute them.
(Uploaded on 16/06/2026 at 01:49:12 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/07/2026 at 12:17:38 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:23229] (3 of 16) [CRLW-172/2020]
5. The basic submission of learned counsel for the
petitioners is that there is complete non application of mind while
issuing the prosecution sanction qua the present petitioners. It is
further submitted that the prosecution sanction authority has
recorded the contents of draft for prosecution sanction sent by the
Investigating Agency ad verbatim in the prosecution sanction
orders and the authority has not even cared to make any kind of
discussion as regards the allegations and material available on
record. It is also submitted that the allegations were politically
motivated and the explanations submitted by the petitioners as
regards the allegations, have not been taken into consideration. It
is also submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are of
granting the pattas to various persons by charging deficit fees,
which has caused the huge loss to the Public Exchequer, but there
is no discussion in the prosecution sanction order that what were
the rates applicable and the orders for the same, have not been
mentioned, which shows that there is complete non application of
mind.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon
the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court of the
Principal Seat at Jodhpur in case of Harish Chandra Bunkar
Balai Vs. Board of Revenue Ajmer and Ors. in D.B. Special
Appeal Writ No.707/2023 decided on 18.10.2024 and the
judgment passed by this Court in case of Naresh Chand Meena
Vs. State of Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition
No.3162/2021 decided on 28.02.2025.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted
that the Investigating Agency vide order dated 11.02.2020 has
(Uploaded on 16/06/2026 at 01:49:12 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/07/2026 at 12:17:38 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:23229] (4 of 16) [CRLW-172/2020]
asked the Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Surajgarh, District
Jhunjhunu, as regards the rates applicable for issuance of pattas
during the period of July 2015 to February 2016, meaning thereby,
on 11.02.2020, the Investigating Agency itself was not sure that
what were the rates applicable and prior to the said letter, the
Investigating Agency has also given a conclusion that the
petitioners have charged deficit fees and the prosecution sanction
has also been accorded without even recording what were the
rates prescribed by any particular order and in that situation, the
allegations of charging deficit fees for issuance of pattas, is not
sustainable.
8. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand
submitted that the petitioners in connivance with others, issued
pattas during the enforcement of the Election Code of Conduct. It
is alleged that the petitioners have ignored the reports given by
the Junior Engineers. He also submitted that the prosecution
sanction orders are in accordance with the conclusion of the
investigation and same have been issued after due consideration
of the material made available on record.
9. Considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the respective parties and also perused the material
made available on record.
10. The basic submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioners is that there is non application of mind by the
prosecution sanction authority while issuing the prosecution
sanction so as to prosecute the petitioners and the prosecution
sanction authority has only recorded what has been mentioned in
the draft format submitted by the Investigating Agency. The draft
(Uploaded on 16/06/2026 at 01:49:12 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/07/2026 at 12:17:38 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:23229] (5 of 16) [CRLW-172/2020]
for prosecution sanction as submitted by the Investigating Agency
to the prosecution sanction authority, has been placed on record
as Annexure-3 in both the petitions.
11. After going through the draft for prosecution sanction
and so also the prosecution sanction orders Annexure-4, this
Court is of the view that whatever has been mentioned in the draft
format, has been recorded ad-verbatim in the prosecution
sanction order as regards each of the allegations and only
beginning part of each para, has been changed. In the draft
format submitted by the Investigating Agency whatever the
allegations and material which has been considered by the
Investigating Agency, has been recorded in the prosecution
sanction order without there being even a little change, which
shows that there was no due application of mind by the
prosecution sanction authority. The basic object of seeking the
prosecution sanction to prosecute a Public Servant is to avoid
unnecessary interference in the internal functioning of the
Department by some other agency. It is the concerned
Administrative Department (i.e. Local Self Department in this
case) which knows on the basis of the record that the Public
Servant working in their department against whom allegations
have been levelled, are based on sufficient material or caused loss
to the Public Exchequer. The prosecution sanction authority has
not even cared to give due consideration to the facts as the
prosecution sanction authority has only recorded the draft format
as it is in the prosecution sanction orders.
12. Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Ashok
Kumar Aggarwal & one other connected matter,
(Uploaded on 16/06/2026 at 01:49:12 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/07/2026 at 12:17:38 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:23229] (6 of 16) [CRLW-172/2020]
reported in (2014) 14 SCC 295, wherein the Hon’ble Apex
Court in paras 13, 14, 15 and 16 has observed as under:-
“13. The prosecution has to satisfy the court that
at the time of sending the matter for grant of
sanction by the competent authority, adequate
material for such grant was made available to the
said authority. This may also be evident from the
sanction order, in case it is extremely
comprehensive, as all the facts and circumstances
of the case may be spelt out in the sanction
order. However, in every individual case, the
court has to find out whether there has been an
application of mind on the part of the sanctioning
authority concerned on the material placed before
it. It is so necessary for the reason that there is
an obligation on the sanctioning authority to
discharge its duty to give or withhold sanction
only after having full knowledge of the material
facts of the case. Grant of sanction is not a mere
formality. Therefore, the provisions in regard to
the sanction must be observed with complete
strictness keeping in mind the public interest and
the protection available to the accused against
whom the sanction is sought.
14. It is to be kept in mind that sanction lifts the
bar for prosecution. Therefore, it is not an
acrimonious exercise but a solemn and sacrosanct
act which affords protection to the government
servant against frivolous prosecution. Further, it
is a weapon to discourage vexatious prosecution
and is a safeguard for the innocent, though not a
shield for the guilty.
(Uploaded on 16/06/2026 at 01:49:12 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/07/2026 at 12:17:38 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:23229] (7 of 16) [CRLW-172/2020]
15. Consideration of the material implies
application of mind. Therefore, the order of
sanction must ex facie disclose that the
sanctioning authority had considered the evidence
and other material placed before it. In every
individual case, the prosecution has to establish
and satisfy the court by leading evidence that
those facts were placed before the sanctioning
authority and the authority had applied its mind
on the same. If the sanction order on its face
indicates that all relevant material i.e. FIR,
disclosure statements, recovery memos, draft
charge-sheet and other materials on record were
placed before the sanctioning authority and if it is
further discernible from the recital of the sanction
order that the sanctioning authority perused all
the material, an inference may be drawn that the
sanction had been granted in accordance with
law. This becomes necessary in case the court is
to examine the validity of the order of sanction
inter alia on the ground that the order suffers
from the vice of total non-application of mind.
(Vide Gokulchand Dwarkadas Morarka v. R.
[(1947-48) 75 IA 30 : (1948) 61 LW 257 : AIR
1948 PC 82]; Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab
[AIR 1958 SC 124 : 1958 Cri LJ 265] , Mohd.
Iqbal Ahmed v. State of A.P. [(1979) 4 SCC 172 :
1979 SCC (Cri) 926], State v. Krishanchand
Khushalchand Jagtiani [(1996) 4 SCC 472 : 1996
SCC (Cri) 755], State of Punjab v. Mohd. Iqbal
Bhatti [(2009) 17 SCC 92 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri)
949], Satyavir Singh Rathi, ACP v. State [(2011)
6 SCC 1 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 782] and State of(Uploaded on 16/06/2026 at 01:49:12 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/07/2026 at 12:17:38 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:23229] (8 of 16) [CRLW-172/2020]Maharashtra v. Mahesh G. Jain [(2013) 8 SCC
119 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 515 : (2014) 1 SCC
(L&S) 85] .)
16. In view of the above, the legal propositions
can be summarised as under:
16.1. The prosecution must send the entire
relevant record to the sanctioning authority
including the FIR, disclosure statements,
statements of witnesses, recovery memos, draft
charge-sheet and all other relevant material. The
record so sent should also contain the
material/document, if any, which may tilt the
balance in favour of the accused and on the basis
of which, the competent authority may refuse
sanction.
16.2. The authority itself has to do complete and
conscious scrutiny of the whole record so
produced by the prosecution independently
applying its mind and taking into consideration all
the relevant facts before grant of sanction while
discharging its duty to give or withhold the
sanction.
16.3. The power to grant sanction is to be
exercised strictly keeping in mind the public
interest and the protection available to the
accused against whom the sanction is sought.
16.4. The order of sanction should make it
evident that the authority had been aware of all
relevant facts/materials and had applied its mind
to all the relevant material.
(Uploaded on 16/06/2026 at 01:49:12 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/07/2026 at 12:17:38 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:23229] (9 of 16) [CRLW-172/2020]
16.5. In every individual case, the prosecution
has to establish and satisfy the court by leading
evidence that the entire relevant facts had been
placed before the sanctioning authority and the
authority had applied its mind on the same and
that the sanction had been granted in accordance
with law.”
13. State of Karnataka vs. Ameerjan, reported in
(2007) 11 SCC 273, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court in
paras 9 and 10 has observed as under:-
“9. We agree that an order of sanction should not
be construed in a pedantic manner. But, it is also
well settled that the purpose for which an order of
sanction is required to be passed should always be
borne in mind. Ordinarily, the sanctioning
authority is the best person to judge as to whether
the public servant concerned should receive the
protection under the Act by refusing to accord
sanction for his prosecution or not.
10. For the aforementioned purpose, indisputably,
application of mind on the part of the sanctioning
authority is imperative. The order granting
sanction must be demonstrative of the fact that
there had been proper application of mind on the
part of the sanctioning authority. We have noticed
hereinbefore that the sanctioning authority had
purported to pass the order of sanction solely on
the basis of the report made by the Inspector
General of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta. Even the
said report has not been brought on record. Thus,(Uploaded on 16/06/2026 at 01:49:12 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/07/2026 at 12:17:38 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:23229] (10 of 16) [CRLW-172/2020]whether in the said report, either in the body
thereof or by annexing therewith the relevant
documents, IG Police, Karnataka Lokayukta had
placed on record the materials collected on
investigation of the matter which would prima
facie establish existence of evidence in regard to
the commission of the offence by the public
servant concerned is not evident. Ordinarily,
before passing an order of sanction, the entire
records containing the materials collected against
the accused should be placed before the
sanctioning authority. In the event, the order of
sanction does not indicate application of mind as
(sic to) the materials placed before the said
authority before the order of sanction was passed,
the same may be produced before the court to
show that such materials had in fact been
produced.”
14. In case of Harish Chandra Bunkar Balai (supra)
the Division Bench of the Principal Seat at Jodhpur, has
observed in para 10, 11, 12 and 13 as under:-
“10. A bare perusal of the above draft prosecution
(as placed on record of the present appeal along
with additional affidavit) and the order dated 28th
January 2015 makes it clear that the order
granting prosecution sanction is a verbatim
repetition of the draft prosecution as furnished by
the ACB to the Collector, Banswara.
11. The order dated 28th January 2015 does not
reflect any ground on the basis of which it can be(Uploaded on 16/06/2026 at 01:49:12 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/07/2026 at 12:17:38 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:23229] (11 of 16) [CRLW-172/2020]concluded that the sanctioning authority applied
his independent mind before granting the
prosecution sanction. In Babu Lal Vishnoi’s case
(supra), a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court relied
upon Subhash Bhatia & Ors. Vs. State & Ors., S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No.590 of 2010, wherein it was
observed as under:
“The authority competent to remove a public
servant from service is clothed with the
power to grant sanction for prosecution to
such public servant by the Legislature with
[2024:RJ-JD:43289-DB] (10 of 12) [SAW-
707/2023] a definite intention as that
authority being having administrative and
disciplinary control on the person concerned
is in a position to assess and weigh the
accusation on basis of intimate knowledge of
the work and conduct and also having day to
day knowledge of overall administrative
interest of the department.
The sanction for prosecution represent a
deliberate decision and that requires
objective satisfaction of the competent
authority about a prima facie case against the
person facing accusation. The authority
competent while granting sanction is also
required to record reasons for launching
prosecution and is further required to specify
its need in public interest. This important
duty can be discharged only on independent
application of mind to all the relevant facts on
basis of which prosecution is proposed.
(Uploaded on 16/06/2026 at 01:49:12 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/07/2026 at 12:17:38 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:23229] (12 of 16) [CRLW-172/2020]If any extraneous pressure is mounted on the
authority competent then there shall be all
chances of frivolous and malicious
prosecution. To maintain the spirit of the
provisions for the grant of sanction to
prosecute a public servant, the authority
competent is required to act independently,
objectively and with an intention for not
saving a culprit from prosecution but at the
same time with a view to afford a reasonable
protection to a public servant from
unnecessary harassment and undue hardship
through vexatious prosecution.
Keeping in mind, the above mentioned
intention of the Legislature, Hon’ble Supreme
Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Ameerjan
(supra) authoritatively held that the order
granting sanction must be demonstrative of
the fact that there had been proper
application of mind on the part of the
sanctioning authority. For the same reason,
this Court too in the case of Kishan Lal
(supra) held that the statutory power given
to the authority competent is required to be
exercised by the authority concerned and not
by any body else.”
12. In Manish Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan &
Anr., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12684 of 2012, it
was held as under :
“As already stated, in the instant matter too
the sanction granted and the draft to grant
sanction are ad verbatim same. The Director,(Uploaded on 16/06/2026 at 01:49:12 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/07/2026 at 12:17:38 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:23229] (13 of 16) [CRLW-172/2020]Mines and Geology appears to have
[2024:RJ-JD:43289-DB] (11 of 12) [SAW-
707/2023] adopted the draft ipse dixit. Section
19 of the Act of 1988 postulates absoluteauthority to grant sanction for prosecution to
the competent authority, as such, the
competent authority is required to apply its
own mind by considering all relevant facts.
The competent authority may avail
assistance of other persons, but in no case,
any other authority can initiate the process
of consideration for grant of sanction and
instruct the competent authority for granting
sanction. In the case in hand, the
consideration for grant of sanction, as a
matter of fact, was initiated by the Anti
Corruption Bureau by sending a draft for
granting sanction for prosecution. The Anti
Corruption Bureau could have communicated
all relevant facts on the basis of which
prosecution sanction could have been
granted, but in no case, the Bureau could
have instructed for grant of prosecution
sanction under a proposed and drafted
document. The prosecution sanction granted
in the instant matter by the Director, Mines
and Geology, Udaipur under the letter dated
18.10.2012 on face depicts non- application
of mind and abdication of the powers by the
Anti Corruption Bureau. The same, therefore,
is illegal.”
13. Applying the ratio of the above
judgments to the present case, we hold that
(Uploaded on 16/06/2026 at 01:49:12 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/07/2026 at 12:17:38 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:23229] (14 of 16) [CRLW-172/2020]
the proposed draft document for grant of
prosecution sanction furnished by the Anti
Corruption Bureau to the sanctioning
authority cannot be upheld in terms of
Manish Mathur and is therefore declared
illegal.”
15. The Investigating Agency has forwarded the draft
format for prosecution sanction to the prosecution sanction
authority and the prosecution sanction authority vide separate
orders dated 07.02.2020 granted prosecution sanction qua the
petitioners. The petitioners have placed on record the letter dated
11.02.2020 sent by the Anti Corruption Bureau to the Chief
Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunu
for knowing that what were the rates prescribed for grant of
pattas during the period of July 2015 to February 2016. Writing
this letter shows that the Investigating Agency itself was not even
certain about the rates prescribed for grant of pattas. When the
Investigating Agency itself was not sure that what were the rates
prescribed for grant of pattas than the conclusion of the
Investigating Agency that the petitioners in conspiracy with other
persons have granted pattas to certain persons by charging deficit
fees and has caused loss to the Public Exchequer, does not seem
to be sustainable.
16. The prosecution sanction authority, who prescribed the
rates/fees for grant of pattas, has also not taken into
consideration and made mention in the prosecution sanction order
that how the allegations of charging deficit fees is made out. With
regard to the allegations in the present matter that the petitioners
(Uploaded on 16/06/2026 at 01:49:12 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/07/2026 at 12:17:38 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:23229] (15 of 16) [CRLW-172/2020]
have charged deficit fees while granting pattas, the prosecution
sanction authority, which is the Administrative Department of the
petitioners, should have disclosed in the prosecution sanction
order that these are the orders prescribing the fees for issuance of
pattas and the petitioners have charged the deficit fees, but the
Court finds no any such discussion in the prosecution sanction
order, whereas this seems very material.
17. There is no reference of prescribing the rates in the
orders for prosecution sanction, which clearly speaks non-
application of mind. The petitioner, Raghav Singh Meena, is said to
have submitted an explanation to the allegation levelled against
him, but there is no discussion in the order of prosecution sanction
as regards the explanation to the allegation submitted by him. The
prosecution sanction authority was under obligation to consider
the explanation submitted by the petitioner, Raghav Singh Meena.
Non-consideration of the explanation amounts to non-application
of mind.
18. From the above discussions and bare perusal of the
draft prosecution and orders dated 07.02.2020 whereby the
prosecution sanction have been issued are ad-verbatim and the
prosecution sanction order is repetition of the draft prosecution as
furnished by the Anti Corruption Bureau. The orders dated
07.02.2020 do not speak of the fact that prosecution sanction
authority applied his independent mind before granting the
prosecution sanction.
19. In view of the discussions made above and in view of
the settled position of law, the present criminal writ petitions
deserves to be allowed.
(Uploaded on 16/06/2026 at 01:49:12 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/07/2026 at 12:17:38 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:23229] (16 of 16) [CRLW-172/2020]
20. Accordingly, both the criminal writ petitions are
allowed. The impugned orders dated 07.02.2020 passed by the
Director and Joint Secretary, Local Self Department are hereby
quashed and set aside.
21. However, the sanctioning/ competent authority shall be
at liberty to reconsider the entire matter in accordance with law
for grant of sanction to prosecute the petitioners under the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
22. The stay applications and pending applications, if any,
also stand disposed of.
23. The Registry is directed to place a copy of this order in
connected file.
(GANESH RAM MEENA),J
13-14/ARTI SHARMA
(Uploaded on 16/06/2026 at 01:49:12 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/07/2026 at 12:17:38 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
