1 39 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 214/2008 [C.P.BHAPNA VS. STATE & ORS.] Dated : 28.02.2008 HON'BLE MR. MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, J. Mr.J.P.Joshi for the petitioner. Ms. Pratshitha Dave for the respondent. ***** Heard learned counsel for the parties. The short controversy raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is regarding issuance of prosecution sanction order (Annex.6) dated 24.07.2007. The only ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that said order has been passed literally by copying the report and thus the order impugned was passed in a mechanical manner and without application of mind thus, deserves to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in view of the various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court this Court cannot interfere in the order of prosecution sanction because all necessary material pertaining to prosecution sanction is to be considered by the Competent Authority. Details of those judgments have otherwise been given in the reply. 2 I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. The only grievance raised by the petitioner is regarding the non-application of mind by the Competent Authority in passing the impugned order, as it is more or less reproduction of the report at Annex.5. The perusal of two documents Annexures 5 and 6 shows that so far as the prosecution sanction order (Annex.6) is concerned, it is more or less contains the same facts as exist in Annex.5. Thus it is difficult to accept that there exist independent application of mind of the Competent Authority. Looking to the above facts, the petitioner is directed to submit a representation to the Authority who has passed the order dated 24.07.2007 bringing out the fact as otherwise narrated in the judgment above and the Competent Authority is directed to pass a fresh order thereupon within a period of two weeks by taking an independent decision for grant or refusal to grant prosecution sanction in the matter of petitioner. The direction aforesaid has been given not only for the reason set out in reference to Annex.5 and 6 but further noticing the fact that till date challan has not been filed pursuant to the prosecution order as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Thus, before filing of the challan, if any, the petitioner's grievances as urged by the counsel for the petitioner is redressed. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. 3 However, it is directed that for a period of three weeks the respondents may not file challan against the petitioner but then same will remain subject to the fact that necessary representation is submitted by the petitioner within a week. (MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI), J. mamta