CWP No. 16322 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 16322 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION: August 03, 2010 Jaswant Singh .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and another ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. J.S. Gill, for the petitioner(s). Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. This petition has been filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 29.09.2007 (Annexure P-5) vide which, sanction for prosecution of the petitioner has been given. 2. Learned counsel contends that the sanction to prosecute had earlier been refused by the authority vide order dated 19.05.2006. The order could not have been reviewed. During the course of hearing of the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner had pointed out that the Vigilance Bureau had not even filed an application before the sanctioning authority and, therefore, suo moto the order denying grant of sanction to prosecute could not have been reviewed vide the impugned order. CWP No. 16322 of 2007 2 3. An additional affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents sworn on 23.10.2009, which clearly states that the Vigilance department had approached the sanctioning authority detailing the reasons for review. 4. I have considered the document Annexure R/1 placed on record with the affidavit sworn on 23.10.2009 wherein, reasons have been given, which are germane to the issue involved. Alongwith the application for review/reconsideration of the matter, relevant documents were forwarded to the authority that was required to consider grant or denial of sanction to prosecute. 5. Somewhat similar issue was raised before this Court in CWP No. 14627 of 2007, Surat Ram Sharma Vs. State of Punjab decided on 17.12.2009. The petition has been dismissed holding that the order denying grant of sanction to prosecute can be reviewed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to distinguish the judgment. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no ground for invoking writ jurisdiction is made out. 6. In view of the above, this petition is dismissed. 03.08.2010 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?