(1) Cri.WP-273.2022.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 273 OF 2022 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3944 OF 2022 Prashant Bansilal Bamb Age : 50 yrs, occ : business R/o Plot No.3-D, Chhabda Building, Sindhi Colony, Jalna Road, Aurangabad Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The Director General of Anti-Corruption Bureau, Mumbai. 3. Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Department, Nanded Range, Nanded. Respondents --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Shaikh Majid, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.D. Sapkal, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. A.D. Khedkar, i/by Ms. Priyanka Kale, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. Pravin Dighe, Advocate for the Intervenor. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ. Reserved on : 11 September 2026 Pronounced on : 16 September 2026 Order (Per Sandipkumar C. More, J.) : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned counsel Mr. Shaikh Majid for the petitioner, learned senior counsel Mr. V.D. Sapkal as Special Counsel for the State and (2) Cri.WP-273.2022.odt also learned counsel Mr. Pravin Dighe for the Intervenor, finally at the admission stage. 2. The petitioner i.e. the then sitting MLA has filed this petition for the following relief : "A] To hold and declare that, there is deemed permission to conduct an open enquiry in the light of the complaint dated 13/09/2019 presented by the petitioner with the respondents herein by issuing writ of mandamus so as to initiate action for misappropriation, fraud, forgery vis-a-vis under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act against the persons named and involved; and for that purpose issue necessary directions". 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, P.W.D. Officers of Nanded had committed corruption of 1.37 Crores, and therefore, the petitioner, vide complaint dated 13.09.2019, had prayed to the respondents to initiate action for misappropriation, fraud, forgery as per the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act by holding that there was deemed permission to conduct the prosecution of the aforesaid PWD Officers. 4. As against this, learned senior counsel Mr. Sapkal strongly opposed the submissions made on behalf of the (3) Cri.WP-273.2022.odt petitioner and contended that the present petition is only for deemed approval for the prosecution of the concerned PWD officers, but the Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Nanded i.e. respondent No.3 had already conveyed to the petitioner vide communication dated 18.09.2020 that no such approval for prosecution of the PWD officers was obtained from the concerned Authority. He pointed out that Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act contemplates that such approval is to be given within a period of 90 days, which can be extended by further period of one month, but there is no deeming provision stating that if such approval is not granted, then it is deemed to be granted. 5. Admittedly, the complaint of the petitioner is in respect of misappropriation of 1.37 Crores at the hands of PWD officers of Nanded in respect of works under 13th Financial Commission for the year 2012-2013. However, statement of the petitioner was also recorded in respect of his aforesaid complaint and on enquiry of the said complaint respondent No.3 found it appropriate for not to grant permission to the prosecution of PWD officers, Nanded under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act. We would like to reproduce Section 17A of Prevention of Corruption Act, which reads as under : (4) Cri.WP-273.2022.odt "17A. Enquiry or Inquiry or investigation of offences relatable to recommendations made or decision taken by public servant in discharge of official functions or duties. [Inserted by Act No. 16 of 2018, dated 26.7.2018.] (1) No police officer shall conduct any enquiry or inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant under this Act, where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties, without the previous approval- (a) in the case of a person who is or was employed, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of that Government; (b) in the case of a person who is or was employed, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of that Government; (c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed: Provided that no such approval shall be necessary for cases involving arrest of a person on the spot on the charge of accepting or attempting to accept any undue advantage for himself or for any other person:Provided further that the concerned authority shall convey its decision under this section within a period of three months, which may, for reasons to be recorded in writing by such authority, be extended by a further period of one month". 6. 6. On going through the aforesaid section, admittedly, the Authority has to grant sanction or permission to prosecute the public servant within 90 days and further in the extended period of one month, bu there is absolutely nothing in the section that if the permission or sanction is not granted within rhe aforesaid period, then it is to be taken that there is deemed permission for such prosecution. Thus, by (5) Cri.WP-273.2022.odt considering nature of prayer claimed in this petition, no relief can be granted to the petitioner for want of such deeming provision. 7. Even otherwise also, there was enquiry report in respect of the complaint of the petitioner dated 24.11.2022 and in the said report two persons were punished for the lapses in the work, but the said report is also not challenged by the petitioner. 8. Under such circumstances, we find no substance in the petition and it stands dismissed alongwith the pending criminal application. 9. Rule is discharged. (VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE) JUDGE JUDGE VD_Dhirde