- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10818 WP No. 104145 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO.104145 OF 2016 (GM-KLA) BETWEEN: KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE STATION, KOPPAL, BY ITS POLICE INSPECTOR …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANIL KALE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY-I, BENGALURU-01. 2. MAHANTESH V. CHIWATAGUNDI AGE : 45 YEARS, TALUK SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER, GANGAVATI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R1; SRI. SHANKAR HEDGE, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER AT ANNEXURE-B DATED 18.10.2014 BEARING NO. ¸ÀPÀE 181 ¥ÀPÀ¸Éà 2012 ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT & ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10818 WP No. 104145 of 2016 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) This petition is filed by the Lokayukta seeking to set-aside the order at Annexure-B dated 18.10.2014, whereby the sanction sought for prosecution in respect of the proposed proceedings under Section 19(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 19881 came to be rejected. 2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of present petition are that, respondent No.2 is stated to have been working as Taluka Social Welfare Officer at Gangavathi. It is made out from the facts narrated that the complainant was supplying grains and materials to Kittur Chennamma Morarji Residential School and insofar as bills raised by him, it is stated that respondent No.2 had demanded illegal gratification to clear the bills. It is further made out from the facts that the complainant had filed complaint against respondent No.2 and there was procedure of trap. After investigation, report along with all 1 For short ‘PC Act’ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10818 WP No. 104145 of 2016 relevant materials is stated to have been submitted by respondent No.1 and order at Annexure-B of respondent No.1 reveals that sanction was refused, which order is called in question before this Court. 3. Heard detailed submissions on behalf of the petitioner-Lokayukta by learned counsel Sri. Anil Kale as well as heard the learned counsel Sri. Shankar Hegde on behalf of respondent No.2 and Sri. V.S. Kalasurmath, learned AGA for respondent No.1/State. 4. The contentions of both sides are adverted to while dealing with analysis in order to avoid repetition. 5. At the out set, insofar as jurisdiction to challenge the order at Annexure-B passed by respondent No.1 is concerned, it must be noticed that the Division Bench of this Court in WA No.255/2022 had considered the very question as to whether the Lokayukta had institutional locus-standi to challenge the order passed by the competent authority refusing to grant sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act to prosecute government servant. The Division Bench of this Court has opined that the Lokayukta - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10818 WP No. 104145 of 2016 would have the institutional locus-standi to maintain the writ petition against an order of Government refusing sanction. 6. Learned counsel Sri. Shankar Hegde appearing for respondent No.2 would submit that the observation made at para-21 of the order of the Division Bench stated supra is a matter to be looked into as well. Insofar as such submission, it must be noticed that the observation made at para-21 would indicate that the Court while entertaining the petition on behalf of Lokayukta may not in all the cases entertain the petition, but must also look into whether the sanction was rejected to shield the accused while also consideration of challenge by the Lokayukta must also be public interest. 7. Learned counsel Sri. Shankar Hegde would also submit that the jurisdiction of Lokayukta to challenge the non- grant of sanction is a matter pending consideration before the Larger Bench of the Apex Court relating to the judgment of other High Courts. It must be noticed that mere reference to the Larger Bench would not be an embargo to proceed with the matter taking note of existing law. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10818 WP No. 104145 of 2016 8. Even otherwise for the present, taking note of the order passed in WA No.255/2022, it would be appropriate to hold that the Lokayukta does have institutional locus-standi to question the order refusing to grant sanction. Insofar as the observation made at para-21 of the said order, the said aspect is referred to at the subsequent para of the same order. 9. Though several contentions have been advanced stating that the preconditions necessary for constituting an offence are not made out, that such aspect needs to be looked into at this stage as well, that insofar as no work was entrusted to the complainant, no work was performed, no bill was pending and no bribe was demanded. However, the Court does not intend to enter into such aspect, as any observation made would prejudice the proceedings noticing that eventual conclusion in the present order is one of remitting the matter for reconsideration by respondent No.1. 10. It must be noticed that the Sanctioning Authority while deciding is required to be appraised of all material, circumstances, facts and documents to enable it to come to a conclusion as to whether the sanction for prosecution could be - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10818 WP No. 104145 of 2016 granted. It is to be noticed that the decision of the government/employer is as to whether case is made out for grant of sanction. In the present case, there is a charge sheet after completion of investigation and in order to file the charge sheet, sanction has been sought. Insofar as correctness of the conclusion of investigating officer, such aspect may not be of relevance, as the Sanctioning Authority does not sit in an appeal over the proceedings of the investigating officer. 11. Learned counsel Sri. Anil Kale has submitted that the technical contention that needs to be looked into is that the order rejecting the sanction was also based on the explanation of respondent No.2 and the decision of the government must be on relevant material and taking note of the explanation has vitiated the conclusion arrived at. 12. Learned counsel Sri. Shankar Hegde would submit that no doubt while respondent No.2 cannot, as a matter of right, seek for being heard at the time of order regarding grant of sanction is being considered, while however, mere granting an opportunity would not vitiate the decision taken by the authority granting sanction. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10818 WP No. 104145 of 2016 13. It may not be necessary to enter into such contention as adverted to by Sri. Anil Kale for the present, as the matter could be disposed off without adjudicating such contention regarding taking note of the views of the delinquent employee. 14. The order at Annexure-B rests on the conclusion of the government. It must be noticed that respondent No.1 has taken note of the bills stated to have been seized for an amount of Rs.15,300/-, but has recorded a finding that the said bills amounting to Rs.15,300/- as referred to by the investigating agency are the bills that were seized two days after the incident of trap and have not been authenticated by the delinquent employee and accordingly, has come to a conclusion that no case is made out for sanction. 15. However, what would be of relevance is the observation made in the impugned order to the effect that the bills in the name of Akshata Computers for a sum of Rs.1,800/-, which amount is specified in two bills, have been obtained with due authentication from respondent No.2. Such observation, in the report at Anneuxre-B, if accepted, would make out a case for grant of sanction. This Court finds that in the order rejecting - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10818 WP No. 104145 of 2016 grant of sanction, there is no reference to such bills. This would vitiate the decision taken and the matter requires reconsideration at the end of respondent No.1. 16. It must be seen that, prima facie, the incident of trap is complete and investigation report is ready. There is sufficient material placed before the authority. When such is the case, the government cannot mechanically decide without attaching due weightage to the material placed before it. This Court finds that the decision making process of rejecting the grant of sanction is vitiated by not taking note of relevant facts. Needless to state that when the material is present including relating to trap and the procedure of trap is completed, procedural decision by the sanctioning authority must be made with due care and diligence. The allegation of corruption ought to be viewed strictly. 17. The approach of the Lokayukta to challenge the order of sanction in the absence of any demonstrable malafides needs to be accepted as an action to further public interest considering the effects of corruption on society. 18. In light of the discussion made above, the petition is allowed. The impugned order at Annexure-B dated 18.10.2014 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10818 WP No. 104145 of 2016 is set-aside. The matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 for fresh consideration leaving all contentions of both sides open. Needless to state that any observations made herein are limited to consideration of present petition and cannot be construed as finding recorded on adjudication of any of the contentions of both sides. 19. The matter is remitted to respondent No.1 to take decision, which decision must be taken within a period of four months. 20. The Court places its appreciation for effective assistance rendered by Sri. Anil Kale, learned counsel for the petitioner/Lokayukta, Sri. Shankar Hegde, learned counsel on behalf of respondent No.2 and Sri. V.S. Kalasurmath, learned AGA on behalf of respondent No.1/State which has enabled the Court in disposing off the matter. Sd/- (S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE JTR CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 8