IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 22647 of 2010 Date of Decision: 20.12.2010. Ashok Gautam --Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. Sushil Gautam, Advocate for the petitioner. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) The petitioner filed a criminal complaint before the C.J.M., Kaithal against respondents no.2 to 5 allegedly for commission of offences under sections 192/201/217/218/221/418/503/506 IPC read with Sections 4 and 5 of Prevention of Corruption Act. Learned Magistrate vide order dated 13.10.2004 formulated a prima facie opinion that a case against the accused under the aforesaid sections is made out, however, the Magistrate declined to summon the accused persons in view of the bar created under Section 197 Cr.P.C which inter alia requires a sanction for prosecution against the Govt. servant. The petitioner filed a revision petition before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kaithal which came to be dismissed on 13.10.2005. The petitioner approached this Court in Crl. Misc.No. 52782-M of 2007 (Annexure P-6) which came to be dismissed vide order dated 23.10.2008. An S.L.P filed in Hon'ble Supreme Court also resulted in dismissal. The petitioner, thereafter, approached the Chief Secretary to Govt. Haryana for grant of sanction for prosecution of the private respondents. Receiving no response, petitioner filed another Crl. Misc. No. 2136 of 2010 which came CWP. No. 22647 of 2010 -2- to be disposed of vide order dated 3.2.2010 asking the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Haryana to look into the allegations contained in the representation moved by the petitioner and decide the same by passing a speaking order thereon in accordance with law. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondent-State for grant of sanction. As a matter of fact the petitioner had moved the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Haryana for grant of sanction as this Court had already passed an order dated 3.2.2010 asking the Chief Secretary to look into the allegations and pass a speaking order. Once this Court has already granted the relief prayed for, this writ petition is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court while disposing of the Crl. Misc. did not fix any time frame for the respondents to decide the representation/application of the petitioner for grant of sanction. Be that as it may, a new writ petition for the same cause will not lie. The petitioner should have approached the court passing the order for appropriate modification. In this view of the matter, this petition is dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 20.12.2010. lucky