1 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1080/2010 Rajendra Singh Meena. vs. Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. Date : 10.2.2010 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.Sanjeet Purohit, for the petitioner. - - - - - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is facing the prosecution in pursuance of the FIR lodged against him under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120B IPC. According to the petitioner, the appointing authority considered all the facts and thereafter reached to the conclusion that it is not a fit case for grant of sanction for prosecution of the petitioner. However, the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Energy vide communication dated 24.12.2009 (Annex.8) and the Secretary (Administration), Jodhpur Discom stated that the prosecution sanction be issued. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, once the appointing authority has decided that it is not a fit case for grant of prosecution sanction, then he cannot at the instance of the other authorities grant the prosecution sanction. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon two judgments of this Court namely, (1) Kishan Lal vs. State of Raj. & Ors. reported in 2009(2) RLW 1412 (Raj.) and (2) unreported judgment delivered in the case of Hanuman Singh Vishnoi vs. State of Raj. & Ors. decided on 14.10.2009. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the facts of the case as well as considered the judgments relied upon by him. It is clear from both the judgments referred above that in those cases, after the direction of the Deputy Secretary to the Government/Higher Authority/Other Authority, the prosecution sanction was granted by the appointing authority, therefore, this Court interfered in those orders granting prosecution sanction. After two judgments referred above, the position became more clear and the appointing authority's duties are very much clear and unless these two documents are acted upon by the appointing authority, the petitioner cannot challenge the recommendation only which itself has no penal consequences and the authorities are yet to examine the effect of the directions issued in Annexures-8 and 9, therefore, at this stage, no case is made out for interference of this Court. 3 In view of the above, this writ petition is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner will be free to avail the appropriate remedy at appropriate stage if the prosecution sanction is granted against him. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya