Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010111742025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/192/2025 MAGONJOY THAOSEN S/O LATE SOJEN THAOSEN, R/O THANA ROAD, HAFLONG, P.S. HAFLONG, DIST. DIMA HASAO, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECY. GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 781006 2:THE SECRETARY GOVT. OF ASSAM PERSONNEL (A) DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006 3:THE JOINT SECRETARY GOVT. OF ASSAM PERSONNEL (A) DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI 78100 For petitioner/appellant(s) : Mr. I. Choudhury, Senior Advocate Mr. S. Chakraborty, Advocate For respondent(s) : Ms. Sumita Sarma, GA, Assam Page No.# 2/4 – BEFORE – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA 24.07.2025 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) Heard Mr. I. Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant and Ms. Sumita Sarma, learned Government Advocate, State of Assam, for the respondents. The challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment dated 24.04.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 5308/2018, whereby the prayer made on behalf of the appellant/writ petitioner for setting aside the order of sanction of prosecution against him has been rejected. The short facts necessary for disposal of this case are that the appellant, an officer of the Assam Civil Service, was subjected to a criminal proceeding. The appellant was charge-sheeted along with many others. However, the sanctioning authority denied sanction for the other accused persons similarly situated, or having grave charges against them. But sanction was granted against the appellant. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant here is that the learned Single Judge did not take into account some necessary facts before denying his prayer. The appellant was entrusted with the additional responsibility of in-charge, Block Development Officer, Diyung Valley Development Block, Maibang. He had written to the government for relieving him of this additional responsibility, but to no avail. An FIR was lodged against him with the allegations primarily Page No.# 3/4 directed towards irregularities in connection with implementation of MGNREGA Scheme and, accordingly, criminal prosecution was launched against him. Later on, the case against him was transferred to CBI. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that, in fact, the prime responsibility for implementation of MGNREGA Scheme was of the Project Director concerned, or the Principal Secretary of the autonomous council. He further submits that there was no evidence of any disproportionate assets of the appellant. The Advocate General, Assam, who was consulted, had also opined in favour of the appellant. Thus, the contention of the appellant here is that he was discriminated against and was put to a selective prosecution, whereas similarly situated officers were spared despite they carrying similar charges against them. A question therefore is raised whether the decision making process for granting prosecution sanction against the appellant stood vitiated because of non- application of mind, or failure to consider relevant facts and circumstances in favour of the appellant. Review of a sanction order could be done only to a limited extent. However, it is trite that such issue be raised only before the Trial court. On enquiry, it was found that the trial against the appellant has been stayed and has remained so since the year 2015. No effort has been made by the prosecution/State to have the stay vacated. It would only be appropriate for the respondents to proceed in the matter so that the case reaches its finality. In the present case, we only deem it appropriate to dispose of the appeal with the observation that all the issues raised herein shall be considered before the Page No.# 4/4 Trial court, if so pleaded. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant