( 2025:HHC:25368 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 13535 of 2024 Reserved on : 26.06.2025 Decided on : 14.07.2025 Chander Shekhar …Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Mr. Janesh Mahajan, Advocate, for respondent No.2. M/s Sartej Singh Narula, B.S. Dogra, Sakshi Sharma and Ravi Tanta, Advocates, for respondent No.3. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge: By way of this writ petition, the petitioner originally, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:25368 ) “i. That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued and the impugned letter/office order dated 12.10.2017 as contained in Annexure P-10, may kindly be quashed and set aside being illegal. ii. That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued and the respondent No.1 may kindly be directed to grant sanction to the CBI for prosecuting the respondent No.3 under the prevention of corruption Act in case RCCHG2017A0013 CBI Court, Chandigarh.” 2. Thereafter, an amendment was sought by the petitioner in the writ petition, which was allowed by this Court on 14.05.2025 and in terms of the amended writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, now prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued and the impugned order/letter dated 12.10.2017, as contained in Annexure P-10 and the impugned order dated 17.11.2022 as contained in Annexure P-12 may kindly be quashed and set aside, being illegal. (ii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may be issued and the respondent No. 1 may kindly be directed to review its orders 3 ( 2025:HHC:25368 ) dated 12.10.2017 and 17.11.2022 and pass appropriate orders for grant of sanction to prosecute respondent No. 3 under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in Case RCCHG2017A0013 pending before learned Special Judge, CBI Court, Chandigarh after application of mind and on the basis of entire material placed on record by the prosecuting agency. 3. The case of the petitioner is that on 27.05.2017, he filed a complaint with the Central Bureau of Investigation, ACB Chandigarh Branch on the allegation of demand of bribe of Rs.10,00,000/- by respondent No.3, who then happened to be Joint Director of Single Window Clearance Agency, Baddi and against one Ashok Rana, a private person, who was the proprietor of a Firm, i.e., M/s Rana Packaging, Plot No. 17, Industrial Area, Lodhi Majra, Baddi, for processing and recommending the case of M/s Medicef Pharma, for the approval of a subsidy of Rs. 50,00,000/-. 4. As per the petitioner, he was a Chartered Accountant and was providing service as a Consultant to M/s Medicef Pharma, Baddi. In this capacity, he submitted the 4 ( 2025:HHC:25368 ) subsidy file of M/s Medicef Pharma in the office of respondent No. 3 for clearing 15% capital investment on the new machinery to be installed in the factory of M/s Medicef Pharma on 28.03.2017, as per the Policy of the Government of India. He visited the office of the Department of Industries, Baddi on many occasions and also met respondent No.3 for processing the file of M/s Medicef Pharma so as to claim the subsidy of Rs. 50,00,000/-. 5. According to the petitioner, respondent No.3 asked him to contact Ashok Rana on his mobile, who was to inform the petitioner regarding the amount of bribe to be paid by the petitioner for getting the work done qua subsidy claim. According to the petitioner, he was duly authorized by M/s Medicef Pharma, Baddi to submit the application to claim subsidy with the Department of Industries and also pursue the said case on its behalf. As per the petitioner, in the complaint, which was submitted by him to the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as “the CBI”), it was mentioned that respondent No.3 had issued a notice dated 19.05.2017 to M/s Medicef Pharma, Baddi, which was received 5 ( 2025:HHC:25368 ) by M/s Medicef Pharma, Baddi on 22.05.2017. In terms of this notice, M/s Medicef Pharma, Baddi was directed to inform whether it had made substantial extension of their Unit at Baddi or not. According to the petitioner, relevant documents in this regard already stood submitted by the petitioner in the office of respondent No.3, on 28.03.2017. As per the petitioner, he had telephonic conversations on 19.05.2017 and 22.05.2017 with Ashok Rana on his mobile number and Ashok Rana informed him that respondent No.3 had directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 10,00,000/- as bribe to get the work of the subsidy claim done. 6. On the basis of the complaint of the petitioner, investigation was carried out by CBI and thereafter, a trap was laid. Respondent No.3 and Ashok Rana were caught red- handed while accepting bribe amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- at Chandigarh. An FIR was registered and after investigation was carried out, a final report was submitted under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code, before the Court of learned Special Judge, CBI, Chandigarh. Two reports, i.e., report dated 28.07.2017 along-with supplementary final report dated 6 ( 2025:HHC:25368 ) 31.10.2023, are appended with the petition as Annexure P-1 and Annexure P-2. Both respondent No. 3 and Ashok Rana were booked under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 7 and 13 (2), read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1988 Act”). 7. Further, as per the petitioner, thereafter, CBI sent a letter to respondent No.1, i.e. Principal Secretary, Industries, on 27.07.2017, in terms whereof, prosecution sanction was sought against respondent No. 3 in terms of the provisions of Section 19 of the 1988 Act. 8. It is averred in Paragraph No.8 of the writ petition that after registration of the FIR and after completion of the investigation, the petitioner was not aware about further proceedings because thereafter, he was never associated/informed by the CBI or by the learned Trial Court with respect to further proceedings of the case in hand. 9. In Paragraph No.-9 of the writ petition, it is mentioned that amazingly the petitioner received a notice dated 28.03.2024 from the Court of learned Special Judge, CBI- 7 ( 2025:HHC:25368 ) PMLA-NIA Court, Chandigarh, on 04.04.2024, vide which, he was directed to appear before the said Court on 10.04.2024 at 10:00 am, with regard to the discharge of one of the accused by the CBI. A copy of the notice is appended with the petition as Annexure P-3. 10. According to the petitioner, pursuant to the said notice, he appeared before the Court of learned Special Judge, CBI, Chandigarh and came to know that Prosecuting Agency had moved an application for discharging respondent No. 3 for want of sanction from respondent No.1 to prosecute him. Thereafter, the petitioner obtained the copy of application dated 29.05.2017, filed by the CBI, in terms whereof, discharge of respondent No. 3 was prayed. Thereafter, he filed an application before learned Special Judge, Chandigarh on 25.04.2024, requesting the learned Court to supply all relevant documents including statements of witnesses in the case to him. Learned Special Judge passed order dated 25.04.2024 directing Public Prosecutor to supply the remaining documents to the petitioner and thereafter, the case was listed on 08.07.2024. Learned trial Court passed various orders directing 8 ( 2025:HHC:25368 ) Public Prosecutor to supply remaining documents to the petitioner. As per the petitioner, he was never supplied certain documents sought by him and ultimately, vide order dated 07.10.2024, the Public Prosecutor was directed to supply some of the documents and the request of the petitioner for the supply of certain other documents was declined. 11. It is further the case of the petitioner that he came to know about order dated 12.10.2017 passed by respondent No.1, vide which, sanction to prosecute respondent No.3 was refused only when documents were supplied to him after 25.04.2024. As per the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioner thereafter could not approach this Court immediately for the reason that on one hand, he was hoping that the trial Court below will pass an order directing the supply of remaining documents to him, which request of his was ultimately refused on 07.10.2024 and on the other hand, he was not feeling well since he was suffering from Dengue. He came to Shimla on 25.11.2024, contacted his counsel and thereafter, filed the petition assailing the order, in terms whereof, the prosecution sanction was refused by respondent No.1, so as to prosecute 9 ( 2025:HHC:25368 ) respondent No.3. 12. During the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner filed an application under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, i.e., CMP No. 542 of 2025, which was filed in the Court on 2nd January, 2025. It was averred in the said application that after filing of the writ petition, the petitioner had received copies of order dated 17.11.2022, passed by respondent No. 1, in terms whereof, respondent No. 1 had decided to reiterate its earlier decision dated 12.10.2017 refusing to grant prosecution sanction in favour of respondent No. 3. In terms of the averments made in the application, it was stated by the petitioner that he received the copy of order dated 17.11.2022 after the filing of the petition and, therefore, it was necessary for the petitioner to amend the writ petition, as he intended to assail order dated 17.11.2022 before this Court. Said application was allowed by this Court vide order dated 14.05.2025 and the petitioner was permitted to amend the writ petition, whereafter, he also assailed order dated 17.11.2022 alongwith order dated 12.10.2017. 13. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner 10 ( 2025:HHC:25368 ) vehemently argued that the impugned orders passed by the Statutory Authority are not sustainable in law. He submitted that the competent Authority ignored the material which was there on record as well as the seriousness of the allegations and assumed that simply because the other private accused was in possession of the money and respondent No.3 was not in actual possession thereof, therefore, he was not guilty of the offence alleged against him. He submitted that there is no application of mind by the Authority while passing the orders and the Authority has not only ignored the intent and purpose of the provisions of Section 19 of the 1988 Act, but has also assumed upon itself the jurisdiction to decide the innocence of the accused, which was not the job of the Authority. He submitted that all that the Authority was to consider at the stage of grant of sanction, was as to whether there was prima facie any merit in the allegations and as indeed, prima facie, there was merit in the allegations, which was also evident from the fact that after the matter was reported to the CBI and after investigation was carried by it, it submitted its final report before the learned Special Judge, which justified the allegations made 11 ( 2025:HHC:25368 ) against respondent No.3, brushing aside of all these facts by the competent Authority is not only bad in law, but by refusing grant of sanction in the present case, grave injustice has been done to the complainant by the competent Authority. 14. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that premium has been given to the dishonest act of the private respondent, who is saved from prosecution just because of the non-grant of the prosecution sanction. He submitted that the provisions of Section 19 of the 1988 Act, have been used as a tool by the competent Authority to shield a corrupt Officer and there are smacks of legal mala-fides which entail indulgence of this Court. He also submitted that in the facts of the case, there was no option with the authority, but to grant prosecution sanction. He submitted that twice CBI approached the competent Authority to grant prosecution sanction and twice the same was refused, just with the intent to save the private respondent. Accordingly, he submitted that as the refusal of the prosecution sanction is totally illegal and not in consonance with the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, on Section 19 of the 1988 Act, the impugned orders were liable 12 ( 2025:HHC:25368 ) to be set aside and this Court should issue a direction to the competent Authority to grant prosecution sanction. 15. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General and learned counsel for the private respondent argued that there was no merit in the writ petition. By referring to the reply filed by the respondent-State, he submitted that the main order of rejection was passed by the competent Authority on 17.11.2022 and the petitioner had assailed the same after a delay of 7 years, for which, no tenable explanation was placed on record and, therefore, the petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of delays and latches. They further submitted that the contention of the petitioner that he was unaware of the refusal of sanction vide order dated 12.10.2017 is completely incorrect and misleading, as it is evident from the bare perusal of the petition and Annexures appended therewith that the petitioner was aware of the refusal of the prosecution sanction. They further submitted that the petitioner was guilty of suppression of material facts as he had suppressed this fact from the Court that in terms of order dated 27.11.2024, passed by learned Special Judge, CBI Court, Shimla, in case titled CBI 13 ( 2025:HHC:25368 ) Vs. Tilak, Raj Sharma and others, for the reason of want of sanction, respondent No. 3 stood discharged. They also argued that in the present case, the petitioner had levelled allegations against a Government Servant, i.e., respondent No.3 of corruption, while he was holding the post of Joint Director, Single Window Clearance Agency of Industries Department at Baddi, on the false allegation that he had demanded bribe in order to release subsidy in favour of one M/s Medicef Pharma, without realizing that Joint Director Industries was only processing/recommending Agency for cases of Central Investment Subsidy. Respondent No. 3 was not the Authority who was to take the final decision in the matter and he simply was to forward the case after completion of codal formalities for the sanction of Central Capital Investment Subsidy to the Director of Industries, Shimla, which Authority thereafter, after again examining the file, was to place the same before State Level Committee with his recommendations for the grant of Central Capital Investment Subsidy. 16. They further submitted that in this case, the case of M/s Medicef Pharma was forwarded by Joint Director, Single 14 ( 2025:HHC:25368 ) Window Clearance Agency and when the matter was placed before the State Level Committee, the same was rejected as the file was incomplete. They further apprised the Court that the application of the company was rejected on 05.03.2019, in which respondent No. 3 had no role to play. They further argued that as the sanction was sought by CBI and as CBI had chosen not to assail the refusal of sanction by the competent Authority, the petitioner had no locus to assail the same. They further argued that there was due application of mind while refusing the sanction by the competent Authority and because in the facts of the case, the competent Authority came to the conclusion that prosecution sanction was not required, the decision of the competent Authority being a decision taken in exercise of Statutory Power conferred upon it and in the performance of a Statutory duty cast upon it, has to be respected, more so, in the light of the fact that no allegation of mala-fide etc., is there against the Authority concerned. They also argued that reasons stood spelled out by the competent Authority as to why the prosecution sanction was refused in both the orders and as the reasons are clearly borne out from 15 ( 2025:HHC:25368 ) the record of the case, the same do not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its power of judicial review. 17. They further submitted that hundreds of applications were filed before respondent No.3 by companies for forwarding their cases for the grant of subsidy which were dealt with by respondent No.3 as per Rules and procedure and no allegation except one raised by the petitioner on behalf of the company which was being represented by him, was levelled against respondent No.3. They submitted that in the light of the fact that no power was vested in respondent No.3 to grant subsidy, there was no occasion for anyone to oblige respondent No.3 by paying him any bribe to have its case sanctioned for the grant of subsidy. Accordingly, they prayed that as there was no merit in the case of the petitioner, the same was liable to be dismissed. 18. I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General, learned counsel for CBI and learned counsel for the private respondent and have also carefully gone through the impugned orders as well as the pleadings and documents appended 16 ( 2025:HHC:25368 ) therewith. 19. At this stage, this Court would like to refer to the pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties, relating to the scope of interference with regard to the decision of the Authority qua the grant of prosecution sanction or refusal thereof. 20. In Mansukhlal Vithalds Chauhan Vs. State of Gujarat, (1997) 7 Supreme Court Cases 622, Hon’ble Supreme Court after referring to its earlier judgments reiterated that prosecution sanction is not intended to be nor is an automatic formality and it is essential that the provisions in regard to sanction should be observed with complete strictness. Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that sanction lifts the bar for prosecution and grant of sanction is not idle formality or an acrimonious exercise but a solemn and sacrosanct act which affords protection to Government servant against frivolous prosecution. Sanction is a weapon to ensure discouragement of frivolous and vexatious prosecutions and is a safeguard for the innocent but not a shield for the guilty. Thereafter, in Para-18 17 ( 2025:HHC:25368 ) and 19 of the said judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold as under:- “18. The validity of the sanction would, therefore, depend upon the material placed before the sanctioning authority and the fact that all the relevant facts, material and evidence have been considered by the sanctioning authority. Consideration implies application of mind. The order of sanction must ex facie disclose that the sanctioning authority had considered the evidence and other material placed before it. This fact can also be established by extrinsic evidence by placing the relevant files before the Court to show that all relevant facts were considered by the sanctioning authority. (See also: Jaswant Singh vs. The State of Punjab, 1958 SCR 762 = AIR 1958 SC 12; State of Bihar & Anr. vs. P.P. Sharma, 1991 Cr.L.J. 1438 (SC)). 19. Since the validity of "Sanction" depends on the applicability of mind by the sanctioning authority to the facts of the case as also the material and evidence collected during investigation, it necessarily follows, that the sanctioning authority has to apply its own independent mind for the generation of genuie satisfaction whether prosecution has to be 18 ( 2025:HHC:25368 ) sanctioned or not. The mind of the sanctioning authority should not be under pressure from any quarter nor should any external force be acting upon it to take decision one way or the other. Since the discretion to grant or not to grant sanction vests absolutely in the sanctioning authority, its discretion should be shown to have not been affected by any extraneous consideration. If is shown that the sanctioning authority was unable to apply its independent mind for any reason whatsoever or was under an obligation or compulsion or constraint to grant the sanction, the order will be had for the reason that the discretion of the authority "not to sanction" was taken away and it was compelled to act mechanically to sanction the prosecution.” 21. In Vineet Narain and others Vs. Union of India and another (1998) 1 Supreme Court Cases 226, Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that holders of public offices are entrusted with certain powers to be exercised in public interest alone and, therefore, the office is held by them in trust for the people. Any deviation from the path of rectitude by any of them amounts to a breach of trust and must be severely dealt with instead of being pushed under the carpet. If the conduct 19 ( 2025:HHC:25368 ) amounts to an offence, it must be promptly investigated and the offender against whom a prima facie case is made out should be prosecuted expeditiously so that the majesty of law is upheld and the rule of law vindicated. Hon’ble Supreme Court also held that it is duty of the judiciary to enforce the rule of law and, therefore, to guard against erosion of the rule of law. 22. In State of Karnataka Vs. Ameerjan (2007) 11 Supreme Court Cases 273, Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that ordinarily the sanctioning Authority is 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. 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. 23. In Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (2014) 14 Supreme Court Cases 295, Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold as under:- 20 ( 2025:HHC:25368 ) “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 21 ( 2025:HHC:25368 ) prosecution. Further, it is a weapon to discourage vexatious prosecution and is a safeguard for the innocent, though not a shield for the guilty.” 24. In Subramanian Swamy Vs. Manmohan Singh and another (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cases 64, Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold as under:- “44. We may also observe that grant or refusal of sanction is not a quasi judicial function and the person for whose prosecution the sanction is sought is not required to be heard by the Competent Authority before it takes a decision in the matter. What is required to be seen by the Competent Authority is whether the facts placed before it which, in a given case, may include the material collected by the complainant or the investigating agency prima facie disclose commission of an offence by a public servant. If the Competent Authority is satisfied that the material placed before it is sufficient for prosecution of the public servant, then it is required to grant sanction. If the satisfaction of the Competent Authority is otherwise, then it can refuse sanction. In either case, the decision taken on the complaint made by a citizen is required to be communicated to him and if he 22 ( 2025:HHC:25368 ) feels aggrieved by such decision, then he can avail appropriate legal remedy. … … … …. … … … 74. Keeping those principles in mind, as we must, if we look at Section 19 of the P.C. Act which bars a Court from taking cognizance of cases of corruption against a public servant under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 of the Act, unless the Central or the State Government, as the case may be, has accorded sanction, virtually imposes fetters on private citizens and also on prosecutors from approaching Court against corrupt public servants. These protections are not available to other citizens. Public servants are treated as a special class of persons enjoying the said protection so that they can perform their duties without fear and favour and without threats of malicious prosecution. However, the said protection against malicious prosecution which was extended in public interest cannot become a shield to protect corrupt officials. These provisions being exceptions to the equality provision of Article 14 are analogous to provisions of protective discrimination and these protections must be construed very narrowly. These procedural provisions relating to sanction must be construed 23 ( 2025:HHC:25368 ) in such a manner as to advance the causes of honesty and justice and good governance as opposed to escalation of corruption. 75. Therefore, in every case where an application is made to an appropriate authority for grant of prosecution in connection with an offence under P.C. Act it is the bounden duty of such authority to apply its mind urgently to the situation and decide the issue without being influenced by any extraneous consideration. In doing so, the authority must make a conscious effort to ensure the rule of law and cause of justice is advanced. In considering the question of granting or refusing such sanction, the authority is answerable to law and law alone. Therefore, the requirement to take the decision with a reasonable dispatch is of the essence in such a situation. Delay in granting sanction proposal thwarts a very valid social purpose, namely, the purpose of a speedy trial with the requirement to bring the culprit to book. Therefore, in this case the right of the sanctioning authority, while either sanctioning or refusing to grant sanction, is coupled with a duty. 76. The sanctioning authority must bear in mind that what is at stake is the public confidence in the maintenance of rule of law 24 ( 2025:HHC:25368 ) which is fundamental in the administration of justice. Delay in granting such sanction has spoilt many valid prosecution and is adversely viewed in public mind that in the name of considering a prayer for sanction, a protection is given to a corrupt public official as a quid pro quo for services rendered by the public official in the past or may be in the future and the sanctioning authority and the corrupt officials were or are partners in the same misdeeds. I may hasten to add that this may not be factual position in this but the general demoralizing effect of such a popular perception is profound and pernicious.” 25. Thus it is evident from the judgments referred to hereinabove, that grant of sanction to prosecute a public servant lifts the bar for prosecution and, therefore, it is not an acrimonious exercise but a solemn and sacrosanct act which affords protection to the Government servant against frivolous prosecution. It is a weapon to discourage vexatious prosecution and is a safeguard for the innocent though not a shield for the guilty. Hon’ble Supreme Court has been further pleased to hold that the order passed by the Authority must ex facie disclose that the sanctioning Authority had considered the evidence and 25 ( 2025:HHC:25368 ) other material placed before it. Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that it 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 and 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. In the light of the judgments cited hereinabove this Court would now proceed with the matter in hand. 26. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has been enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to the prevention of corruption and for matters connected therewith. Section 19 thereof, inter-alia, provides that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 7, 11, 13 and 15 of the 1988 Act alleged to have been committed by a public servant except with the previous sanction, save as otherwise provided in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, in the case of a person who is employed or as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed 26 ( 2025:HHC:25368 ) in connection with the affairs of a State and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government, of that Government. 27. Thus, for proceeding against a State Government servant qua commission of offences mentioned in Section 19 of the 1988 Act, the previous sanction of the State Government is necessary. 28. In the present case, the petitioner is aggrieved by the refusal of the sanction by the Authority for the prosecution of the private respondent, under Section 19 of the 1988 Act. Communication dated 12.10.2017, in terms whereof the prosecution sanction was refused, which led to the filing of this writ petition, is appended with the petition as Annexure P-10. In terms of this communication, the competent Authority decided to deny the sanction to prosecute the private respondent due to the following reasons:- “(I) Joint Director Industries is only a processing/ recommending agency for cases of Central Investment Subsidy. The final authority to sanction the cases under the scheme is State Level Committee (SLC). (ii) The Government of India releases the 27 ( 2025:HHC:25368 ) Central Investment Subsidy directly to the eligible units through Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) portal of Government of India. (iii) The case of M/s Medicef Pharma was under process with the Joint Director of Industries, SWCA, Baddi and the Firm was asked by the Joint Director of Industries alongwith others to submit requisite information vide letter No. Ind/SWCA/BD/CCIS/SPS/2017/-1186- 237, dated 19.05.2017. A specific letter was written to M/s Medicef Pharma on 29.05.2017 to submit 11 documents enabling his office to process the case. (iv) Shri Chander Shekhar, the Complainant (Ref. D-2/1) has claimed in his complaint dated 27.05.2017 filed before the Superintendent of Police. CBI. Chandigarh that he is a Chartered Accountant and providing services as Consultant to M/s Medicef Pharma having its factory in Plot No. 28. EPIP, Phase-I, Jharmajri, Baddi, Dist. Solan (HP). He further stated in his complaint that he is dealing with the Olo Joint Director of Industries on behalf of M/s Medicef Pharma, his client. The document placed in the case file (Ref. D-47) which is a copy of authority letter on Medicef Pharma letterhead, with Bold capital letters M/s Medicef Pharma with 28 ( 2025:HHC:25368 ) the caption "Authority Letter" executed by one Shri Vijay Kumar Aggarwal partner of M/s Medicef Pharma authorizing Chartered Accountant Shri Chander Shekhhar special attorney on behalf of the Firm for sanction and release of 15% Capital Investment Subsidy from Department of Industries, SWCA, Baddi and Directorate of Industries, Shimla. After careful scrutiny, it is revealed that the above Authority Letter is required to be signed by Shri Vijay Aggarwal since he is authorising Shri Chander Shekhar special attorney on behalf of M/s Medicef Pharma. Whereas, contrary to the above position Shri Chandra Shekhar has signed as Executant. It appears that Sh. Chander Shekhar wasn't authorised properly to represent the M/s Medicef Pharma nor authorized Shri Chander Shekhar to pursue the file to release 15% Capital Investment Subsidy. (v) The Joint Director through his office order dated 27.11.2015 had prohibited entry of middlemen/unauthorized persons, Accountants/ Advocates/ Private Consultant pursuing approvals/NOCs and other incentives pertaining to different industrial units without authenticated authorization(s). All the concerned entities whose 29 ( 2025:HHC:25368 ) work and other issues pertaining to the Department of Industries were pending were directed to depute their own employees or else, to issue verified authorization for their specific work. This order seems to have created ill-will for the Joint Director concerned. (vi) The inquiry report refers to recovery of money from the private individual i.e. Sh. No such recovery was made from Sh. Tilak Raj Sharma. (vii) In the last, it is worthwhile to point out that the CBI conducted various searches including his residence, however, apart from Rs.5 lakhs recovered from Shri Ashok Rana a private person, nothing has been recovered from Shri Tilak Raj Sharma, which will goes in favour of Shri Tilak Raj Sharma.” 29. A perusal of this order demonstrates that what weighed with the competent Authority while deciding that sanction was not to be accorded for the prosecution of the private respondent was that the Joint Director, Industries was only a processing/recommending agency for the cases of Central Investment Subsidy and the final Authority to sanction the cases under the Scheme was with the State Level 30 ( 2025:HHC:25368 ) Committee; the Government of India released the Central Investment Subsidy directly to the eligible units through direct benefit transfer portal of Government of India; the case of M/s Medicef Pharma, was under process with the Joint Director of Industries, SWCA, Baddi and the Firm was asked by the Joint Director along-with others to submit their requisite information vide letter dated 19.05.2017 and on 29.05.2017, a specific letter was written to M/s Medicef Pharma to submit 11 documents enabling the Office of the Joint Director, Industries to process the case; complainant Chander Shekhar claimed in his complaint filed before the Superintendent of Police, CBI that he was the Chartered Accountant and provided services as consultant to M/s Medicef Pharma, he further stated in his complaint that he was dealing with the Office of Joint Director of Industries on behalf of M/s Medicef Pharma, his client, however, the Authority letter on which the complainant was harping upon, was required to be signed by Shri Vijay Aggarwal, partner of M/s Medicef Pharma, since he was authorizing the complainant the Special Power of Attorney of M/s Medicef Pharma, whereas, contrary to the said position, 31 ( 2025:HHC:25368 ) the complainant had signed the same as an executant, which demonstrated that complainant Chander Shekhar was not authorized properly to represent M/s Medicef Pharma nor he was authorized by M/s Medicef Pharma to pursue the file to release 15% Capital Investment Subsidy; Joint Director through his Office order dated 27.11.2015, had prohibited entry of middlemen/unauthorized persons, Accountants/Advocates/ private consultants, pursuing approvals/NOCs and other incentives pertaining to different industrial units without authenticated authorization. All the concerned entities whose work and other issues pertaining to Department of Industries were pending, were directed to depute their own employees to issue verified authorization for their specific work and said order seem to have created ill will for the Joint Director concerned; Inquiry Report referred to recovery of money from a private individual namely Ashok Rana and no recovery was made from Tilak Raj Sharma; CBI conducted various searches including the residence of the private respondent, however, apart from Rs. 5,00,000/- recovered from Ashok Rana, a private person, nothing was recovered from Tilak Raj Sharma, which also goes 32 ( 2025:HHC:25368 ) in the favour of Tilak Raj Sharma. 30. This communication, as already mentioned above, is dated 12.10.2017, yet the petitioner slept over the matter and filed this petition only in the year 2024. Averments made in the writ petition trying to justify as to why the petitioner earlier could not assail order dated 12.10.2017 are incorrect. In terms of the averments made in the writ petition, i.e., Para-14 thereof, the petitioner has stated that he came to know about the order dated 12.10.2017, passed by respondent No. 1, in terms whereof, sanction to prosecute respondent No. 3 was refused, only when documents were supplied to him after 25.04.2024. Besides this, the petitioner has also mentioned in Para-8 of the petition that after registration of the FIR and completion of investigation, the petitioner was not aware about further proceedings, because thereafter, ‘he was never associated/informed by the CBI and by the learned Trial Court with respect to the further proceedings of abovementioned case’. However, the averments made in this paragraph of the petition are falsified by the documents appended with the petition itself, i.e., Annexure P-2, wherein, 33 ( 2025:HHC:25368 ) on 25.01.2018, further statement of the petitioner was recorded by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, Chandigarh, which reads as under:- “RCCHG2017A0013 Date: 25.01.2018 Further statement of Sh. Chander Sekhar Sio Sh. Surinder Kumar r/o H. No. 587-S, Sector-21, Panchkula, Haryana. U/s 161 of Cr.PC DOB:24.07.1979 Mob No.9218503362 This is in Continuation to my earlier statement dated 11.07.2017. Today, I have been shown Authority letter dated 24.03.2017 and on perusal of the same, I state that it is the Authorization given to me by Shri Vijay Aggarwal, Partner, M/s Medicef Pharma, Plot no. 28, Jharmajri, EPIP Phase I, Baddi, Distt. Solan (HP) on the letter head of the said Firm vide which I, in the capacity as Consultant of the said firm was authorized to do all kinds of dealing on behalf of the said firm with the Department of Industries, Baddi (HP) in the matter for claim of Central Investment Subsidy by way of substantial expansion of the machinery installed in the factory premises of the said firm. I further state that the said Authority Letter was executed by Shri Vijay Aggarwal in the capacity 34 ( 2025:HHC:25368 ) as Partner of the above Firm, which was duly accepted by me in the capacity as Consultant of the above said Firm. I identify my signature as well as the signature of Shri Vijay Aggarwal on the said Authority Letter. I identify the signatures of Shri Vijay Aggarwal, Partner, M/s Medicef Pharma, Plot no. 28, Jharmajri, EPIP Phase I, Baddi, Distt. Solan (HP) on the above Authority letter dated 24.03.2017, as I have come across his signatures and have also seen him signing documents in day to day functioning of the work in the said Firm. On being asked, I state that I had inadvertently signed in the above Authority Letter under the head as "Executant" and Sh. Vijay Aggarwal, Partner of the above Firm had likewise inadvertently signed under the head "Accepted", I state that I should have signed as "Accepted in the capacity as Consultant of the above Firm, whereas, Sh. Vijay Aggarwal should have signed under the head as "Executant" in the above said Authority Letter in the capacity as Partner,, M/s Medicef Pharma, Plot no. 28, Jharmajri, EPIP Phase I, Baddi, Distt. Solan (HP). On being asked, I state that I had informed Sh. Vijay Aggarwal, Partner, M/s Medicef Pharmą that Sh. Tilak Raj Sharma had demanded bribe of Rs.10 lakhs for clearing the file pertaining to 35 ( 2025:HHC:25368 ) release of amount of Central Investment Subsidy of our Firm through one Ashok Rana, a private person. I state that Sh. Vijay Aggarwal and myself had also discussed the matter of demand of bribe of Rs. 5 lakh as first installment by Sh. Tilak Raj Sharma through Ashok Rana, a private person and the bribe amount of Rs.5 lakhs was given to me by Sh. Vijay Aggarwal, Partner of M/s Medicef Pharma to be given to Sh. Tilak Raj Sharma for clearing the subsidy file of our Firm. I had then lodged a written complaint against Sh. Tilak Raj Sharma with CBI on 27.05.2017 for demand of bribe of Rs.5 lakh as first installment from me for clearing the subsidy file of our Firm. Before me RO & AC (R.S. Gunjiyal) Dy. Supdt. of Police CBI, ACB, Chandigarh” The Court was informed that the statement was recorded in the course of further investigation by the CBI, which was carried out in compliance to the orders passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI Court, Chandigarh. Therefore, the holding out made by the petitioner in writ petition that after filing of the FIR and after completion of the investigation, he was not aware about further proceedings or that he was never 36 ( 2025:HHC:25368 ) associated/informed by the CBI or by the learned Court about the proceedings in issue, is completely false. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner concocted a story to make this Court believe that he came to know about the refusal of sanction to prosecute the private respondent only in the month of April, 2024, whereas, record speaks to the contrary. This raises a huge question mark with regard to the intent of the petitioner and, obviously, the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands. 31. Another fact which this Court would like to point out at this stage is that the writ petition as originally filed, was filed with the prayer for setting aside impugned letter/office order dated 12.10.2017, Annexure P-2. Therefore, when the petitioner initially approached this Court by way of this writ petition, he was only assailing the order of refusal to grant prosecution which was passed by the Authority as far back as in the year 2017. As this Court has already observed hereinabove that the contention of the petitioner that he was not aware of the said refusal cannot be accepted to be correct because records demonstrate that he was very much aware of 37 ( 2025:HHC:25368 ) the factum of the refusal of the sanction as far back as in the year 2017. In the absence of there being any cogent explanation as to why the petitioner has approached this Court against the said order after a gap of 7 years, this petition obviously is hit by delay and laches, as has been argued by the learned counsel for the private respondent also. Further, interestingly, the prosecution has not assailed the order of sanction in this case nor till date the Company, application filed by which for the receipt of subsidy, purportedly resulted in the filing of the complaint on behalf of the petitioner, has comeforth to contest the refusal of the grant of sanction. 32. One more fact which this Court would like to highlight at this stage is that during the pendency of the writ petition, the same was amended and order dated 17.11.2022 was also challenged by the petitioner. 33. Now incidentally, though it is the contention of the petitioner that it was during the pendency of these proceedings that these developments took place but fact of the matter is that this order was also passed by the Authority on 17.11.2022 and initially this order was not even assailed in the writ petition. 38 ( 2025:HHC:25368 ) 34. A perusal of order dated 17.11.2022 demonstrates that Central Bureau of Investigation had not approached the authority for grant of fresh prosecution sanction, but it approached the authority for reconsideration of its earlier decision, in terms whereof, sanction was not granted for the prosecution of respondent No. 3. It is evident from Annexure P-12 that the Competent Authority reiterated the earlier decision conveyed vide letter dated 12.10.2017 by observing that the earlier Sanctioning Authority had taken the decision not to grant prosecution sanction after going through the entire evidence and upon due application of mind on the issue. 35. Be that as it may, it is a matter of record that order dated 12.10.2017 and 17.11.2022, were not passed by the same Officer. This means that two different Officers who were having the duty cast upon them to consider the request of the prosecution for the grant of prosecution sanction, refused the same. Besides this, there is no mala-fide alleged against the Officers by the petitioner, who have refused to grant sanction. The impugned orders demonstrate that the Authority took into consideration the material that was placed before it by the 39 ( 2025:HHC:25368 ) prosecution and thereafter, after due application of mind, by way of a reasoned order, refused to grant prosecution sanction. This Court does not otherwise also find any infirmity in the reasoning that has been given by the Authorities while refusing the prosecution sanction. It cannot be said that the refusal is without any due application of mind or without taking into consideration the material that was placed before the Authorities by the prosecution. Simply, because the petitioner is not satisfied with the refusal of the prosecution sanction, this does not render the refusal to be bad in law. 36. Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Ameerjan (Supra), has been pleased to hold that an order of sanction should not be construed in a pedantic manner and it is well settled that the purpose for which an order of sanction is required to be passed should always be borne in mind. Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that ordinarily the sanction 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. 37. Coming back to the facts of this case, a perusal of 40 ( 2025:HHC:25368 ) the impugned orders under challenge demonstrate that the Authorities after taking into consideration the entire material which was placed before them, concluded that in the facts of the case, prosecution sanction was not to be granted and it refused to do so by recording its satisfaction and by passing reasoned orders and, therefore, the orders refusing to grant sanction, are valid orders. There is no reason as to why this Court should interfere with them and substitute its own decision for the decision taken by the Authorities. 38. Accordingly, in the light of the above discussion, as this Court finds no merit in the writ petition, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 14, 2025 (bhupender/shivank)