IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.566 of 2009 Renu Sinha @ Renu Kumari Sinha w/o Mahesh Prasad, resident of Vill-Balhee, P.S. Saharsa, District-Saharsa. ---Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna. 2. The Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Patna. ---Respondents ----------- 6. 12.7.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Rama Kant Sharma, learned Special P.P. (Vigilance). The petitioner through this writ application challenges Order No.739 dated 8th of November, 2007, as contained in Annexure 8, whereby the Divisional Commissioner, Patna sanctioned her prosecution for the alleged offences under section 7/13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in exercise of the powers under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as also under section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Submission of the petitioner is that the order has been passed without due application of mind and without considering the materials on the record and as such the order sanctioning the prosecution of the petitioner deserves to be quashed. It is further submitted that the petitioner had earlier come to this Court with a grievance against framing of the charge. However, in the said earlier proceeding, the petitioner did not assail the order sanctioning prosecution. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Vigilance, on the other hand, submits that on perusal of the impugned order it would appear that the sanctioning authority has specifically recorded in the - 2 - order what are the documents which are perused and also considering the evidences available on the record has passed the order and it cannot be said that the order has been passed by the sanctioning authority without due application of mind and as such, the writ application deserves to be dismissed. Upon considering the rival submissions of the parties and on perusal of the impugned order, as contained in Annexure 8, it would appear that the sanctioning authority while according sanction for prosecution of the petitioner has taken into consideration the documents as also all the relevant files as well as the recorded materials and, as such, it would not be correct to say that the order has been passed without due application of mind. The submission of the petitioner that it would appear from the information furnished under the Right to Information Act that no document was considered cannot be accepted in view of the express sanction order giving details which are taken into consideration before sanction. This apart, it appears that the impugned order was passed on 8th of November, 2007 whereas the present writ application was filed assailing the said document on 23rd of July, 2009, for which no explanation has been offered. Considering the facts and circumstances as also the discussions made above, I do not find any merit in this writ application. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. PNM (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)