1 wp.1085.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1085 OF 2010 Tanvi Construction Private Limited ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.A.Y.Sakhare with Mr.U.B.Nighot for Petitioner. Mr.S.R.Shinde, A.P.P. for Respondents 1 & 2. Mrs.Teja Katdare for Respondents 3 and 4. Mr.A.M.Chimalkar for Respondent No.5. ...... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND U.D.SALVI, JJ. DATED:- AUGUST 25, 2010. P.C. 1. This Petition takes exception to the decision of the Assistant Municipal Commissioner, R/North dated 22nd March 2010, whereby, the said Authority rejected the request for grant of sanction to prosecute Shri Sachidanand Krishna Shetty for offence punishable under Section 52 r/w Section 55 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. The only reason stated in the communication which is impugned before us by 2 wp.1085.10.sxw the said Authority is that no action was ever initiated by the Office in respect of the alleged act of commission and omission nor any complaint has been received in the Corporation Office in that behalf. On the other hand, on the basis of complaint made by the Petitioner, the Police investigated the matter and upon conclusion of the investigation, filed charge sheet before the Trial Court. At that stage, it was realised that prior sanction under Section 142 of the Act of 1966 would be essential, for which reason, the Police Department approached the Corporation for according sanction to prosecute the proposed accused. In absence of such sanction, the Criminal Court would not take cognizance of the offence. As aforesaid, the said request has been rejected by the Assistant Municipal Commissioner only on two counts referred to earlier. 2. In our opinion, the reasons stated by the Assistant Municipal Commissioner for rejecting the request to accord sanction, are unsustainable in law. We say so because the language of Section 142 of the Act of 1966 itself is indicative of the fact that the prosecution can be launched against the official of the Corporation by any person and not necessarily to be initiated by the Corporation itself. Besides, there is no legal impediment which mandates that the sanction to prosecute can be 3 wp.1085.10.sxw accorded by the appropriate Authority only if a formal complaint about the alleged act of commission and omission was in fact lodged with the Corporation. Suffice it to observe that the basis on which the Assistant Municipal Commissioner has rejected the request to accord sanction made by the Police Department is untenable. Accordingly, the impugned decision will have to be set aside. 3. Having done that, the next course is to relegate the parties to the stage before passing of the impugned decision, by reviving the proposal for according sanction for prosecution. It will be open to the appropriate Authority of the Corporation to reexamine the proposal for grant of sanction afresh on its own merits in accordance with law. We express no opinion about the correctness of the stand taken by the Respondent Corporation on affidavit before this Court. Those aspects will have to be considered by the Authority on its own merits and take appropriate decision as may be advised. 4. It will be open to the Petitioner to submit within one week from today the written representation to the appropriate authority of the Corporation who is expected to take decision on sanction proposal, which 4 wp.1085.10.sxw may also be considered by the appropriate Authority on its own merits in accordance with law. 5. Petition allowed on the above terms. (U.D.SALVI, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)