1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1070/2008 {Babu Khan Versus The State of Rajasthan & Others} Date of Order :: 19th September, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Girraj Prasad for Mr. Amin Ali for the petitioner Mr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, Additional Government Counsel for the respondents BY THE COURT: Admit. Mr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, Additional Government Counsel appears for the respondents. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition before this Court on 1st February, 2008 challenging the impugned order dated 29th June, 2006 passed by respondent no.3 (Annexure-2), whereby a sanction has been granted under Section 197 Cr.P.C. for prosecution of the petitioner under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 4. The learned Government Counsel has 2 raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the writ petition has been filed after a delay of one year and eight months and further that challan in the present case has already been filed and trial against the petitioner is pending since 2006, therefore, at this stage, the impugned order cannot be and should not be judged and writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also examined the impugned order dated 29th June, 2006, whereby sanction has been granted for prosecution of the petitioner for the offence under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act. The impugned order is well reasoned and self speaking one and no interference in it is called for for a simple reason that the disciplinary authority has applied its mind while granting the sanction which is clear from the order itself. Apart from above, the writ petition is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay in filing the writ petition as there is a delay of one year and eight months in filing the writ petition. 3 6. In view of above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed on merits as well as on the ground of delay in filing the writ petition. No order as to costs. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK