SM 1 21.wp.1595.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1595 OF 2011 Mr. Shivaji B. Talekar ....Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra ....Respondent ____________ Shri. A. H. H. Ponda i/b. Shri. A. M. Saraogi for the Petitioner. Shri. A. S. Shitole, APP for the Respondent-State. CORAM: B. R. GAVAI , J. DATED : 11 TH JULY, 2011. P.C.: Rule. Rule, returnable forthwith. 2. The limited relief claimed in the present Petition is that since the matter pertaining to a preliminary issue as to whether the Applicant is a public servant or not, is pending before the learned Trial Court on remand by this Court, the Applicant be also permitted to raise the issue regarding the validity of sanction. 3. In earlier ground of litigation, the learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1974 of 2009 by order dated 22 nd July, 2010 had directed the Trial Court to frame the preliminary issue as to whether the Maharashtra Rajya Sahakari Dudh Mahasangh Maryadit (Manmad), Mumbai is owned and controlled SM 2 21.wp.1595.11 or by the Government, and consequently, as to whether the Applicant as its employee is a public servant or not. 4. When the matter was argued on remand, an additional issue regarding the validity of sanction is also raised by the present Petitioner. However, by the impugned order, the learned Trial Judge refused to entertain such an issue on the ground that he Applicant is seeking to delay and protract the Trial. 5. The Apex Court has held that issue regarding validity of sanction has to be raised at an earliest opportunity. I find that since the Trial Court is already seized of the issue as to whether the Applicant is a public servant or not, it will be in the interest of justice that the Applicant is also permitted to raise an issue regarding the validity of sanction. 6. Mr. Ponda, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner makes a categorical statement that on the next date, i.e., 16 th July, 2011, the Petitioner would not seek any adjournment and would proceed with the hearing of these issues on the said date. 7. In that view of the matter, rule is made absolute by directing the Trial Court to permit the Petitioner to raise the issue SM 3 21.wp.1595.11 of validity of sanction as prayed in the application, which is already filed by the present Applicant, and to decide the same in accordance with law. (B. R. GAVAI, J.)