Prosecution Of CM Siddaramaiah | Karnataka High Court Live.

on himself yeah yes that is one of the that is on the lightest yes yes yes my submissions are in five compart six compartments yes sir Lord first the arguments are Advanced about the scope of the governor's power under Section 17A yes relying upon the parameters prescribed under section 19 yes sir I would wish to assist your LS on the question that section 17A stage yes and application of mind I'll take your lordship through I'm just giving outline of what I'm respectfully assisting your lordship with yes what are the diff What are the differences between the provisions of 17A and 19 and resultantly what will be the parameters of Governor's jurisdiction Governor's power or Governor's Duty what whatever we may call it while exercising powers under 17A or 19 second my respectful submission is that the parameters of the governor's jurisdiction under 17A would be akin to what is described by The Honorable Supreme Court in Lita kumari's case that he has to see a primy case whether the facts emerges a cognizable offense or not if the facts reflects Commission of a cognizable offense he's not a judge he's not supposed to sit in appeal and decide whether offense is committed not committed he has to say that yes as alleged there is a cognizable offense and he has to uh discharge His function under 17A third the decision of the governor because of two reasons by the virtue of the office he holds and he deals with other constitutional functionaries generally and considering the very nature and scope of section 17A is such that his reasons which are recorded in the order of approving 17A investigation need not be elaborate it must reflect application of Mind nonetheless because any elaborate reasonings will have a tendency of prejudicing the potential accused during the investigation and as well as during the trial but I must show it's the duty of mordi Governor to show that there is an application of mine and thereafter the reasons are recorded and the reasons can be found from the file also the next submission which I am making my learned friends argument was that in case of one one complainant the governor issued notice in two cases The Honorable Governor did not issue notice but my respectful submission in law and which I will substantiate by Lord the provisions as well as the legal interpretations given by the courts yes that at the stage of 17A there is no requirement of any principles of natural Justice yes he may have chosen to issue notice in one case but non-issuance of not notice even in that one case would not have created any Prejudice to anyone because in law there is no contemplation of hearing and I will elaborate at the stage of 17 at the stage of 178 because Supreme Court has went to the extent of saying even at the stage of 19 hearing is not required yes yes because 19 is post investigation yes L next contention I would my Lord assist your lordship with it is why the governor was required to act in his own discretion and not my Lord as per the aid and advise as contended by the petitioner Aid and advise of the Council of ministers under article 163 of the Constitution will have no application when The Honorable chief minister is facing an allegation I'm saying only allegation it is yet to be decided and the governor is called upon to decide 17A the submission which my learned senior just now made yes uh Professor Ravi Kumar VMA very iminent Council I have I have an occasion to oppose him in one of the reservation matters before The Constitution bench but the submission is that mention of BNS vitiates the decision of the governor that submission is required to be only pointed out to be rejected for the simple reason that suppose IPC offences are also mentioned the governor will not go under 17A which offenes are made out Governor will only say that yes Prima FY criminal offenses are made out and it will be for the investigating officer to decide under what Provisions Char sheet if is to be filed because the investigation may result into filing of the Char sheet it might result into filing of a closure report but in the event of filing of a charge sheet the investigating officer will take his own independent decision based on the material of the record that these are the provisions which are attracted which in a given case earlier also procedure it is not yet referred even for investigation so while referring these crimes may be noted may not be noted correct and even even if it is noted IO will not be bound by them maybe the governor has missed two three sections hypothetically the io can still say that the honorable Governor did not have full facts they were the honorable governor was relying upon only a written complaint now I have investigated I have documentary evidence I have oral evidence I have other evidence and now I feel that three other sections are also required to be edit then he would edit so mention of BNS IPC or any of the sections or non- mention thereof would not vitiate the order in any case will not cause any Prejudice to the petitioner so as to give him an opportunity to challenge it on that ground and last which again M my learn senior friend M mentioned that the criminal liability of the husband of the wife cannot be attributed to the husband Dr singi also made submission that I have not made any recommendation if that is so then fine then 17A is not required the complainant can straight away proceed with the criminal complaints then 17A goes their problem is solved they should withdraw the petition that I have not done anything in my official capacity I have not recommended anything I am not involved maybe my wife was beneficiary all right then 17A is not required then what are we arguing for we troubling your lot of with by showing justification for validity of 17A order it's a self defeating suicidal argument in my respectful submission now my lords I'll I have prepared a summary of my submissions yes sir and so far as governments governance application of mind is concerned I have gone through the file I will share the file with your lot ships and without making it a precedent I will share with the other side also in law my submission is that the potential accus cannot have an access to that file but we don't wish anything to play hide and seek I'll show it to the petitioner also that this is the application of mine and based upon the considerations which are reflected from the file the governor has reached the conclusion that this is a case for 17A and he has passed the order these are my return submissions I give yes sir Lord uh page five you may directly come to page five up to four my Lord I have I have only pointed out this is the Skeleton on which I'll address your LS yes 26th of July 24 a shoka notice dated 26th July 24 which is placed by my Lord the petitioner at NX Jersy was issued to the petitioner in relation to the petition seeking Grant of approval for investigation on the basis of complaint filed by respondent number three it is an admitted position that what is the content of the shos notice is only the complaint of respond number three and not the other two complaints because my submission is going to be even this step was not necessary therefore non-compliance with other two makes no difference creates no Prejudice gives no cause of action then my Lord on 31st of July 24 a cabinet was note was put up for consideration of the Council of ministers in relation to the Sha notice issued by The Honorable governor of Karnataka to The Honorable chief minister to respond within 7 days as to why sanction for prosecution should not be granted as requested by One S TJ Abraham in his application dated 26th July 24 the cabinet note in its introductory paragraph notes as under please read the chief minister with his note dated 27th July 24 the next day of re seat of notice has directed the chief secretary to place the matter of a shoka's notice issued by The Honorable governor of Karnataka addressed to the chief minister of Karnataka V number so and so uh before the cabinet along with all the materials available on record with the Urban Development Department and after Consulting with the Learned Advocate General accordingly the chief secretary after ofing The Advocate General it should be the opinion of The Advocate General but the mistake is in the original note my lord it's not in this accordingly Chief secretary after obtaining the opinion of the Learned Advocate General and examining the records directed the uh Urban Development Department to put up a cabinet note with details along with the opinion of The Advocate General on the matter for consideration of the cabinet here on a lighter note my Lord nowhere the government rights learned Advocate General that is the practice throughout I'm not criticizing I'm saying on a lighter note because Lord uh there was Lord an eminent lawyer called Fe E Smith he had said three things that in the court of law never believe three things when the honorable Judge says my learned brother he neither means that he's learned nor he treats him as a brother second when I say my learned friend we are generally friends but we rarely treat each other as learn it and and and uh when we say that with with profound respect but with profound respect generally mean as per him this is not my interpretation that your Lordships have not understood but let me make your lordship understand and he has elaborately detailed that that with respect means you have not understood but with profound respect means you have completely not understood at all understood not not not at all understood so these are the jargons so we call each other learn and that is the irony when your lordship set aside the order of the trial court your lordship would say the Learned judge has not understood even basic fundamentals of law if the second part is true then how is he a learned judge but this is what we live with since centuries then the cabinet note dated 31st of July at an exra D from from page 267 of the r petition filed by the petitioner then Council of Minister through its cabinet decision advised The Honorable Governor to withdraw the notice dated so and so issued by him to The Honorable chief minister based on the petition and addendum dated so and so filed by one TJ Abraham and to proceed forth with to reject the said application by denying prior approval and sanction as requested by the petitioner Abraham the decision of the cabin is Lord also placed by them yes the petitioner submitted his reply to the shos notice dated 26 July 24 which is also aned and something very interesting from the note prepared by the chief secretary thereafter the Learned Advocate General thereafter the matter comes to the cabinet thereafter The Honorable chief minister prepares his reply Etc which I'll come Al when I deal with that respondent number two place the file in relation to the issue at hand along with the decision of the cabinet d so and so and reply of the petitioner dated so and so before The Honorable Governor the respondent number two is the secretary to The Honorable Governor whom I represent and he placed that these are the papers this is the note of cabinet the cabinet has to say this and all documents uh as I will show from the file uh complaints documentary evidences anex with the complaint etc etc the opinion of the Learned Advocate General everything was uh placed then 8824 The Honorable Governor directed respondent number two to put up the file along with comparative statements of the petitioners petition he understands M to be complaints oh this was done yes there is an elaborate application of mine I'll show from the file I'll share it with my learned The Honorable Governor directed respond number two that is his principal secretary to put up the file along with comparative statements of the petitions received in relation to the grant of sanction reply of the chief minister and the decision of the cabinet that you give me in this format then I'll make up my mind then comparative then 14th August comparative statements as referred above were placed before The Honorable governor for his perusal 14th August 24 after perusing the file and discussing the issues The Honorable Governor directed to resubmit the file along with notes or analysis points as dictated the Learned Governor dictates that this is the alation of the complainant this is what the cabinet note says this is what the reply of The Honorable chief minister says and this is the note the note is dictated by him I'll place it it's a big chart several charts were prepared and The Honorable govern himself dictates based on and this comes in the noting file also it's not that I'm saying for the first time that it was dictated by the governor in the noting file mod it comes that it was dictated by the governor uh based on the comparative statement and available documents and petitions the file along with all the aborea documents and comparative statements as dictated by The Honorable governor was placed before The Honorable governor for necessary orders the order of approval for investigation was passed by The Honorable governor and thereafter the petitioner for your lordship now taking the first point first your Lordships are aware prior to the enactment of the new prevention of corruption act yes the amendment to the prevention of corruption act which was in 2067 2018 yes 18 there was no concept of an approval prior to yes the investigation the only concept was prec cognizance sanction sanction under section 19 for the first time 17A comes your have read and R this provision but only read kindly on my request page eight par page eight only subsection one yes sir no police officer shall conduct any inquiry or inquiry or investigation into any offense alleged to have been committed by a public Serv under this act it doesn't talk of BNS or IPC under this act where the alleged offense is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant in discharge of His official functions or duties without the previous sanction of ABCD according to me this case would fall within B and C but I'll have to independently substantiate that it it is the governor in case of The Honorable chief minister who is not supposed to act as per the aid and advice of the Council of ministers now my Lord so far as this is concerned Lord I have already pointed out that the scope is very very limited I have to as a governor see whether the complaint and the documents which are placed makes out a cognizable offense which requires investigation it may result in a CH sheet or the report under 173 as we uh call it or a closure report as per old section 169 but that's not the call the governor is permitted also to take the governor cannot say that I have examined and uh cognizable offense is made out it's of a serious nature it will be attracting this provision it will be attracting so much punishment etc etc no he will go by Prima FY case that whether it needs to be examined by an investigating agency as an investigation under the provisions of law Lord your Lordships have had an occasion to consider this honorable Court had considered your Lordships thereafter gave a detailed and Illuminating decision but SRI Rupa yes Lord I I would your L like me to Lord place for L of consideration two very different concepts yeah yes and sanction they stand on different they stand on different footing the the parameters are different the considerations are different the way in which you deal with the application is also different in that case there was nothing said nothing said except saying we Grant approval approval there was no application of mind at all in that case yes that was that's why that was and they are relying upon these judgments to show that there has to be an application of M in my respectful submission to Canvas a proposition that any AD administrative order has to be after application of mind you don't need any judgment it's rudimentary it's Elementary my Lord it has to be after application of mind you don't need any judgment there are certain Universal propositions which doesn't need to be supported by any judgment I'm straightway conceding it has to be uh after application of mind it will depend upon facts of each case and what is the extent of application of mind is to case based is based on facts to fact so I'm placing it but with I'm not reading Lord this judgment L kindly see what would be the scope of the power because your Lordships would be laying down the law in while deciding this not only with reference to a scenario where the honorable governor who is a constitutional functionary is deciding the approval issue of The Honorable chief minister who is also a constitutional functionary 17A applies across board yes in case of a tar or a patwari maybe the tar is or deputy collector is this Authority Under uh 17 so what is the scope of his inquiry what is the scope of his application of Mind whether to exercise 17A power as requested by the complainant or not to exercise L that broadly in my respectful submission we can get assistance from Lita Kumar that your lot would find at page 12 I can take your tell your whatever paragraphs I have quoted I have my Lord the full text of the Judgment which I'll place this is only for ready reference yes I'll Place M the entire Bunch for lordship's consideration right now I'm not giving yes please come this is a con your Lordships are aware it's a constitution five honorable J M 31 yes and I I'll skip some of the Paras M the FI is a pertinent document in the criminal law procedure of our country and its main object from the point of view of the informant is to set the criminal law in motion and from the point of view of the investigating authorities is to obtain information about the alleged criminal activity so as to be able to take suitable steps to trace and to bring to book the guilty now kindly come to page 30 par 49 I skipping other paragraphs yes sir 49 highlighted B bold part consequently the condition that is Sina non for recording an F under Section 154 of the code is that there must be information and that information must disclose a cognizable offense this applies squarely to 17A if any information disclosing a cognizable offense is L before an officer in charge of the police station someone has forgotten these things happen yeah this are some interesting incidents in Virtual hearing must disclose a cognizable offense if any information disclosing a cognizable offense is Led before an officer in charge of the police station satisfying the requirement of section 1541 the state police officer has no other option except to enter the substance thereof in the prescribed format that is to say to register a case on the basis of such information but I'm not comparing the police officer with the governor but I'm saying police officers function under4 is the function of any approving Authority under Section 178 he may be a tar or he may be the honorable Governor that whether Prima off offense is made out then not only is Duty bound it is not only his right is Duty bound to Accord approval the provision of 154 of the code is mandatory and the officer concern is Duty bound to register the case on the basis of information disclosing a cognizable offense thus the plain words of section 1541 of the code have to be given their literal meaning the use of the word shell in 154 of the code clearly shows the legislative intent that it is mandatory to register an F if the information given to the police discloses the commission of a cognizable offense therefore the context in which the word shell appears in section 1541 the object for which it has been used and the consequences that will follow from the infringement of discretion to regist direction to register FS all these factors clearly show that the word shell used in 1541 needs to be given its ordinary meaning Etc Lord my learned friend may be tempted to say that in case of 17A it is not shell the shell is used only with regard to the police officer and not the governor yes I'm using this judgment mod for assisting your Lordships to say that these are the parameters the government Governor will bear in mind that I am not supposed to conduct a trial I am not supposed to even examine whether I would ultimately give sanction for section 19 no it is at stage of 17 17 because section 19 he would be having the material filed by the police and his parameters would be again different the threshold would be high this is only Prima this is only Prima if there is a cognizable offense made out he has to give approval whether he's Governor or a t yes uh The Only Exception my Lord in Lita Kumari is that in case of prevention of corruption act or matrimonial offenses conduct a kind of a preliminary inquiry that that is for the police officer here he has to apply his mind preliminary inquiry does not mean six Clauses in par 20.1 120.1 120.1 so here he is conducting a preliminary inquiry within his mind that it is uh whether case is made out or not why I I say this what will be the disasterous consequence if we read my Lord the principles of natural Justice into it as I said Lord It's not a case of honorable governor and The Honorable chief minister this would apply to all public servants under the prevention of corruption in many cases so the uh if I can so the suggestion is if natural Justice is to Prevail prior to 17A and you're drawing you're paraphrasing 17A to 154 then before registration of f notice will have to be given hard exactly my learned friend in fact CED my learned friend in fact what you're trying to Raj aaral judgment yes uh where he said that he had an honor to assist the honorable Court I incidentally also had an honor to assist the honorable Court where my learned friend either inadvertently missed that part where the honorable Court said that in criminal matters hearing is not required in that very judgment otherwise M kindly see the prior to 1541 every accused will have to be heard now of course in the new BNS under 218 and prec cognizant stage yes a notice is required no even there the Supreme Court says not required Paras was on VC it missed out I said the argument was that to declare account fraud is like an fi so how can you hear before an fi the court made the distinction that no hearing required before F but to declare an account fraud which is akin to criminal you must have a hearing that is the distinction I made you missed it on the VC kindly kindly my consider if my learned friend is right that before granting approval under 17A a hearing is required 17A is for the prevention of corruption offenses it applies over the board to every public servant yes the moment notice is given there are all possibilities my Lord that the evidence will be lost that is one more reason my Lord not to read hearing or principles of natural justice under 17A suppose M collector were to give approval for the deputy collector's corruption case and he is in office he might M temper with the evidence he might misplace the file the evidence will go this is one more reason why 154 or 17A no hearing except the preliminary inquiry that is in 120.1 of yes my Lord in in given case in Lita Kumari says that if it is something suppose I go and file a fir which is completely absurd that Mr so and so I approached then he demanded 50,000 Rupees then straightway don't register an fi and pick him up conduct a kind of a preliminary inquiry because it's the Station House officer who does this yes while here in 17A why that preliminary inquiry is also not contempla only contemp is whether you find cognizable offense being made out from the material on the so merely because the honorable Governor thought it fit to issue notice in one case does not necessarily mean that non-issuance of notice in other two cases would viate the order now I'm relying upon at page 14 my Lord's Lord very Illuminating judgment Lord in Dr ashoke versus the state Val were pleased to disting 1 and I think this is the first judgment yes just posing 17A and 19 yes and your L where based upon that judgment there is a direction also issued by the high court Mal that even it applies to the magistrates the magistrate also cannot uh straightway issue process or call upon the complainant to be in the witness Box Etc the complant will have to go with 17A so I'm not reading it is your lordship's judgment now I will show how there is an application of mine kindly have the original F I'll share it with my learned friend Mr singi and uh Professor Ravi Kumar also but I'll have one more copy have copies and the Learned Advocate General also by virtue of his office though he is not concerned with the list between M The Honorable governor and honorable chief minister but I understand his position and by virtue of his office is entitled to have the Exel he's rightly sitting on our side govern government is always on The Honorable in high court honorable Judge ask me in Gujarat also the government sits on the left that why does the government sits on the left I said we always sit on the right side of law yes sir I share the original file original uh I have shared the original file with your Lordships yes sir and obviously I'm getting giving Xerox to my learned friendship and I can assure your LS your I hold this with me certainly your Lots can yes only my Lord ensure that it doesn't go out that's and I would request my learned friends also that that that can remain only with them and their CL it may not travel Beyond nothing is secret confidential or anything which needs to be hidden but there is some sanctity attached to the governor's office and I'm at the cost of repetion maintaining that this is without making it a preced yes just to show that there is nothing to hide a and two there is always there is an application of Mind according to me more than what was required your Lordships are not supposed to go through the entire bul please see the first part which is the noting section noting section this is the noting section you have the give it to the yes this is the note page one you may would find it is continuously paginated and paragraphed through till the decision is taken yes this is the note placed by the principal secretary to the governor for consideration of the governor I'll not read it my Lord it merely reproduces per one kindly peruse the petition submitted by S TJ Abraham dated so and so placed in the file then Lord what is the content he mentions and eventually my Lord uh he writes please peruse papers he request The Honorable Governor the complaint and addendum submitted by S TJ Abraham may be perused in file he has requested sanction of prosecution against the sitting chief minister under various Provisions quoted so and so with this fact the file is submitted for further orders now M Lord The Honorable governor on page three and note number eight uh makes this not I have heard s TJ Abraham in person and gone through the petition and supporting documents submitted by him Prima fi I am of the view that there might be irregularities and misuse of power he doesn't reach a conclusion of criminal offense but he he took care to see that there is genuinely a person it's not an anonymous kind of or a pseudonymous kind of a complaint because a complant himself has appeared has appeared he was heard he he shown the documents Etc hence issue shoko notice to so and so calling explanation within 7 Days thereafter five it further goes on as per the order of the honorable Governor draft copy of the later that is draft copy of the show cuse notti then the SOA notice goes please come to page seven again the special secretary to the governor writes kindly peruse the later dated 3rd August 24 received from Sri soeno and later dated soeno received from the chief secretary to government placed in the file the chief secretary has submitted the cabinet decision dated so and so along with the enclosures the cabinet note is of 91 Pages possibly the longest cab note in the history of uh this country after or even pre-independence and something more interesting I'll show to your Lordships Pages along with relevant copies of the judgments and legal opinion in reply to the shoko notice dated so and so issued by The Honorable chief minister further so Ando has submitted his reply to the shoko notice dated so and so along with legal opinion and relevant records which runs through 60 plus odd Pages the state cabinet for the facts and reasons mentioned mention in the cabinet decision has strongly advised The Honorable Governor not just an advise it's a strong advice to the governor to withdraw the notice dated so and so issued to The Honorable so chief minister based on the petition and addendum dated so and so filed by one TJ Abraham and to proceed forth with to reject the S application by denying prior approval The Honorable chief minister in his reply has requested to peruse his reply as well as the advice rendered by the cabinet we dates resolution dated so and so and to withdraw the notice issued to him and to deny prior approval and sanctions sought by the petitioner by rejecting his application with the above details and along with records submitted the file is placed before The Honorable uh before The Honorable for kind perusal and orders these are the documents submitted by Mr Abraham as well as by the government then at the foot is the note by the is the note by The Honorable Governor put up along with comparative statements of petitions Chief Minister's reply and the cabinet decision put it in three different compartments which your lot would find your lot need not read it just for the uh flavor of it page 1 1236 no I'm sorry it is 1224 there are three or four A3 type chart prepared just by way of an example 1224 there is a chart of this size it would be easier to find 1 224 yes there are three columns Petition of s uh TJ Abraham yes then specific rebal of allegations in the application for approval or sanction and factual metrics yes similarly if yourip goes through the other chart and I'll show cabinet reply and cm's reply yes which is the second chart at page 1208 then comparative statement of all the three petitions yes this is where the governor comes to know that they are relating to the same transaction yes so I don't need not follow even an empty formality of issuing notices the allegations are same with respect to the same lend Etc now kindly come back Lord with me to the F noting section your lot May kindly come to page eight now of the file noting section yes yes 21 par number 21 the file notings are ping I see team numbered and pated as directed at parah 20 comparative statement of petition received from so and so so and so and The Honorable chief minister reply and the cabinet decision are placed in the file for kind perusal of The Honorable court now please see 22 is very very important Mar this is The Honorable Governor's noting peruse the file discuss the issues he discusses the issues with the officials who are assisting him hence resubmit the file along with notes stroke analysis points as dictated he goes through these charts and dictates at page 1 12 36 his own Prima conclusions page 1 2 3 six allegation reply and the third column is what is dictated by The Honorable Governor it is from page one to 36 2 1 225 page numbering is reverse yeah that is government files government files so each and every allegation the reply of The Honorable chief minister and cabinet he considers and he dictates that this appears to be the Prima uh situation then par 9 page n uh this is mon by the special secretary or to the governor per pre Paras May kindly be perused the petition received from then three numbers requesting Grant of sanction for prosecution in respect of irregularities conducted and corrupt practice adopted by so and so this is the language used in the complaint he doesn't say that this is we are dealing with sanction for prosecution he is reproducing the language of the complainants yes then 26 as directed the file along with the above details documents and comparative statements please note dictated notes by The Honorable that is Honorable Governor that appears to be the way in which the honorable Governor is referred to within the office yes is placed before The Honorable for further necessary orders then my Lord page 11 petitions received from s TJ Abraham this is the note Lord prepared by The Honorable Governor it is signed Lord at page 25 yes by The Honorable Governor yes petitions received from C so and so so and so and petition with additional documentation petition from C so and so so and so so and so uh requesting Grant of sanction for prosecution in respect of irregularities conducted and Corrupt Practices adopted by so Ando concerning allotment of alternative site by muda under various sections of PC act and bnss has been perused he reproduces what the complainant say he doesn't say I'm dealing with sanction prosecution in view of the allegations and on a primy perusal of the petitions for Grant of sanction for prosecution and materials in support of the allegations asoko notice dated so and so along with the copy of the petition by S TJ Abraham and material in support of the allegations was issued to S so and so the reply to the shos notice dated so and so along with anexas was received at office of his Excellency the governor of Karnataka on so and so it appears from the material anex to the reply I need not read reproduces Lord the contents of various things my Lord yes please come to page 15 yes or my at page 16 that is 31.2 31.2 the chief minister is the head of coun Council of ministers the Council of ministers is normally required to act fairly and in a Bonafide manner however the Council of ministers is appointed on the recommendation of the chief minister well please note here this is the Constitutional mandate under article 164 164 requires that the governor would appoint ministers on the recommendation of The Honorable chief minister this is one of the factors with the governor considers whether to act on his own discretion or as per the aid and advice it is but natural that stance of Council of ministers in is in support of the chief minister hence in such extraordinary circumstances it is hard to assertain that the Council of ministers have acted fairly and in a Bonafide manner the governor under article 163 of the Constitution is required to act under the St Aid and advice of Council of ministers however an exception may arise when consideration is being done for Grant of sanction for prosecution of the chief minister and the decision of Council of minister is affected affected by Apparent bias as regards the application of doctrine of Aid and advice is concerned this honorable this has been conclusively settled in state of Maharashtra versus so and so that sanction to prosecute the chief minister is the exclusive function of the governor to be ex ized by him in his discretion followed by the decision in case of Dr J J Lita versus so and so wherein it was further Amplified that it is erroneous to say that the view of the Supreme Court was based on a concession made by Council and the perusal of the relevant part of the Judgment shows that the court has expressed its opinion that such concession was rightly made in the present matter the allegations and the material in support of allegations would Prima indicate that the S land was given to uh SC person by due course of law the record of the S land was transferred from the father to uh children and again from children to Father this mystery was not considered by the state cabinet when the notification now he says why I'm not relying upon State cabinet first he says that even as per law I'm supposed to use my own discretion not Aid and advice now he goes further State cabinet when the notification land acquisition issued and the denotification order was issued she soeno was the member of legislative assembly from Soo constituency as well as a member of mour Urban Development Authority and further this land was purchased by Brother in- law of s so and so where the seller was from the constituency of so and so and later on on after getting the land converted into the residential purpose gifted it to the wife of s so and so who became the owner of the property and the application for allocation of alternative sites came to be moved on the basis of relinquishment of agricultural land on the basis of this application muda passed the resolution pursuant to the amendment to allot alternate sites it has been specifically AED that the rules was specifically amended a in the complaint is giving a prima consideration whether a cognizable offense is made out which needs investigation a rule was specifically amended from 4060 to 5050 to Aid this transaction was so and so was the chief minister further the petition seeking Grant of sanction for prosecution and material provided clearly indicate that s so and so son of s soeno participated in muda meeting which resulted in allotment of alternative site in very Prime layout called Vijay nagar these facts were placed before the Council of ministers the afor said brief brief facts when correlated with the material in support of Grant of sanction clearly established that there is apparent bias in the decision taken by the Council of ministers in favor of s so and so due to this apparent bias the present matter requires my independent application of mind to the petition seeking Grant of sanction for prosecution and the material in support of the same it is seen from the decision taken by the Council of ministers that a committee under the chairmanship of s soeno was constituted to look into the present matter however the government upon considering the facts of the present matter as reported in the media and newspapers appointed a high level single member inquiry committee under the commission of inquiries act it appears from the terms of reference of the high level single member committee that there are serious allegations involving illegal allotment of alternative sites illegal allotment of land and irregularities in allocation of land further the constituting a committee under an is officer and immediately constituting one member committee under a retired judge of the high court and the government's own acceptance that there is potential Big Ticket scam in allotment of sites by muda does not Inspire much confidence It is Well settled legal principle that the persons against whom allegations are made should not be empowered to decide the course of action even after such grave allegations being involved in the present matter and the fact that materials Prima supports that allegations therefore the decision taken by the Council of minister is irrational this is what MP judgment says that if it is found that it is irrational or viated biased or uh other considerations I'll come to then the governor will have to act at his discretion as even after the appointment of high level single member inquiry committee on such serious allegation the Council of ministers do not consider the entire material in support of the allegation the subject of buying ing of the advice of the Council of Minister for governor and discretionary power of Governor during special circumstances is well discussed and decided in case of madya Pradesh police establishment versus so and so the five judges Judges Bench of the Supreme Court has held that if on these facts and circumstances the governor cannot act in his own discretion there would be a complete breakdown of rule of law in as much as it would then be open for governments to refuse sanction in spite of overwhel in material showing that a prima FY case is made out if in cases where Prima FY is clearly made out sanction to prosecute high functionaries is refused or withheld democracy itself will be at stake this is quotation from the supreme court judgment it would then lead to a situation where people in power may break the law with impunity safe in the knowledge that they will not be prosecuted as requisite sanction will not be granted on the Point raised by the Council of ministers that an application for previous approval under Section 17A can be made only by police officer and not by a private person my Lord something something which was unfortunately argued by the petitioner despite and I will come to that a very fair and correct legal opinion given by the Learned Advocate General saying that no this is not true it it is not any private individual is also as held by your Lordships bound to approach it is only investigation inquiry should not commence by a police officer without approval exactly not that he should seek approval there's no law that he only should seek approval yes but that was approval can be sought definitely when that's what I have also held approval can be sought by anybody approval setting the criminal law into motion it can be by anybody so this what requires is 17 a 17A and approval can be sought by the person who has sought to set the La any person no officer shall investigate what is said in 17A is only without approval he shall not investigate he need not seek if I as a private individual because in a criminal jurisdiction Juris Prudence there is no concept of locust andai anyone can anybody can set the but if I go before the court invoking mot the powers of the court to issue process or issue a direction again to the old section 1563 then I'll need that approval under 17A otherwise even Court cannot Direct that's all that approval should be there for a police officer to inquire inquire or investigate therefore to be very fair to The Advocate General in his opinion he says that relying upon your lordship's judgment that no I have myself held yes yes he relies upon but unfortunately the petitioner still cons continue that no it can only be the police officer therefore I'm just reading that even that is considered by The Honorable Governor provides the police officer and not private person section 17A of the prevention of corruption act provides that no inquiry or inquiry or investigation shall be conducted by a police officer into any offense alleged to have been committed by a public servant under the PC Act without prior approval from appropriate Authority however neither it is said that private person cannot request for the prior approval from the competent author nor only the investigating agency will seek the sanction from the competent Authority the only thing is to be is to understood that the police will not inquire without prior sanction it is important that police should start the investigation process only after getting the sanction from the competent Authority it is immaterial who does the effort to get the sanction the decision of The Honorable high court of Karnataka in so and so Dr asok my Lord's judgment what more application of mind can a governor Lord make is expected to make at a 17 a stage but since it was a contention raised by The Honorable chief minister he deals with this uh so and so and various High courts the high court of Karnataka had issued guidelines to be followed in the cases related to prosecution of public servant for the alleged offenses during the discharge of Duties with a circular dated so and so this circular stipulates the procedure and prerequisite for registering the cases of prosecution against the public servants Point number two of the circular reads as your Lordships have read that circular I'm not reading hence last two lines the ab circular of The Honorable High Court makes it compulsory that previous sanction is necessary to file a private complaint in the court of law by private persons in view of the afor side it emerges that the present situation amounts to Peril of democratic principles and therefore requires independent application of mind and my subjective satisfaction and OB objective assessment of facts and materials provided since the sanction is sought Against The Honorable Minister himself chief minister himself the surrounding circumstances of placing the shoko notice before the cabinet and the decision of the cabinet advising me to withdraw withdraw the notice would not Inspire confidence to act on such advice of the cabinet so why he is not following 163 is also uh recorded by applying mind upon perus all of the ition along with the material in support of the allegations in the petition and subsequent reply of sh so and so and the advice of the state cabinet along with the legal opinion it seems to me that there are two versions in relation to the same set of facts it is very necessary that a neutral objective and nonpartisan investigation should be conducted I'm Prime ay satisfied that allegations and supporting materials disclose Commission of the offences then Lord at the end he says 32 hence I hereby Accord sanction against the chief minister under Section 17A of the ACT read with 218 of so and so for the commission of the alleged offences as mentioned in the petitions my petition mention two things 17A and 218 218 is 197 which is not the stage here so this will have to be confined to 17 197 is pre cognizance pre cognizance after investigation investigation and M thereafter mord the order is passed based upon M this material which is on m page one your lot ships were taken by my learned friend Mr singi to the order we the the order the Impe order imp impune order but this is this is the impune order there after according sanction to and my Lord this is uh the The Honorable Governor signs on 16th August 24th the entire detailed Lord consideration and on the same date on 16th August the impune order is passed according approval and I'll show that all findings all considerations all application of Mind need not be in the order it should be reflected on file and the Court's conscience should be satisfied that there is an application of mind when I am meeting with the allegation that The Honorable Governor did not apply mind let me show something very interesting the application of mind and why the Govern honorable governor was fully justified in not relying upon the aid and advice there are five stages I'll just tell you L broadly and just show the first is the chief secretary prepares a note that these are the facts of the case say 40 pages I'm uh giving in hypothetical it would be 45 or whatever yes or 20 or whatever thereafter matter goes to the uh learned Advocate General for his opinion the Learned Advocate General obviously takes those facts as they are I'll not take copy because we always take the facts as given to us from the uh officers then adds his opinion judgments etc etc that is the second stage third stage the matter is placed before the cabinet cabinet in this 90 page cabinet note verb team comma full with comma full stop reproduces the opinion of The Advocate General of the ADV General and the chief chief secretary verim comma full stop constitutionally speaking the cabinet is collectively responsible but this is a case of collective non- application of mind everyone Lord agreed to something which is pre-written Page to page thereafter Lord the fourth stage come and fourth stage is the reply given by by The Honorable chief minister which is cut paste from Chief secretary learned Advocate General cabinet North that forms part of his reply and the last per that in view of this don't Grant sanction and the fifth stage the petition contains those ements in that order serim Page by Page irony Bangalore is an it capital of the country there is an artificial intelligence available they could have used artificial intelligence to at least paraphrase what is being copied but they say on a on a lighter side that artificial intelligence can never match natural stupidity this is my Lord the collective non-application of mind and I have dealt with mot a reasonable application of Mind by the M the first point yes this is my application of yes no I think even natural Justice you dealt with or still to tell yeah no I I have something more to add Lord please come to page of my note Lord please come to Lord page 19 but page 18 because my learned friend may only a minute yes yes my learn friend May raise a ground a potential submission which I a deal with right right now that whatever is the application of Mind should be reflected in the order itself and you cannot justify it by file notings The Honorable Supreme Court had an occasion occasions to deal with such a submission yes not required 1990 yes I'm I'm grateful say if the reasons are found in the file noting that would suffice because it was also a case of a chief minister yes kindly have a look at but just to give a flavor of the Judgment page 18 have the Judgment no page 18 of my note I have quoted the relevant part huh yes sir page 19 Lord is the Judgment parah 22 a NRI yes yes a namb it is submitted that in order to understand the reasoning of the decision to Grant approval for sanction the perusal this was also Grant of sanction preorganizing sanction so something at a higher threshold after investigation yes after investigation 17A is at a much lower threshold the perusal of the the file is necessary it is stated that same is a permissible mode of examination of the extent of application of mind and locating the actual reasons behind the order in case of Union of India versus EEG nudi please turn the page over my Lord I'll read only what is relevant because I know your Lordships need not be bothered with what is very obvious your Lordships are fully aware only highlighted part if any challenge is made to the validity of an order on the ground of it being arbitrary or malafide it is always open to the authority concern to place reasons before the court which may have persuaded it to pass the orders such reasons must already exist on record as it is not permissible to the authority to support the order by report reasons not contained in the records like like M Mohinder Sing case that you cannot substantiate your order by by filing aidit subsequently but the reasons are already pre-existing so the submission is in mahinder Singh Gil there was nothing in the order nor in the file it was sought to be justified by way of statement of objections which the Supreme Court said it cannot be done it cannot be done now what you're saying is that is everything is in the file it is not that it should be in the order it existed when the order was passed ex then par 10 in government function governmental functioning before any order is issued the matter is generally considered at various levels and the reasons and opinions are contained in the notes on the file the reasons contained in the file enable the competent authority to formulate its opinion if the order as communicated to the government servant rejecting the representation does not contain any reasons the order cannot be held to be bad in law if such an order is challenged in a court of law it is always open to the competent authority to place the reasons before the court which may have led to the rejection of the representation it is always open to an administrative authority to produce evidence alun before the court to justify its action I cannot file an affidavit and supplement it by new reasons but I can always show that reasons already existed and summary of those reasons is the forms part of the impune order similar in case of Sarat Kumar Das kindly see only the highlighted part the record is called to consider whether he has given new consideration to the facts placed before him before he arrives at the decision therefore the reasons in the order or found from the record PES the link between the maker of the order and the order itself or decision therefore the natural Justice is not a rigid nor a inflexible rule it should be applied to a given fact situation depending upon the background of the statutory Provisions nature of the right which may be affected and the consequences that may entail this Court held that the grant grading itself is a reason and no separate reason in that behalf in arring that is on the facts of the case so it is not providing reason post decision but showing then page 22 I have quoted my against SRI Rupa Lord where only par 30 and 31 me perhaps I would like to assist your lordship with yes sir it is therefore not necessary that there should be clear incriminating evidence with the investigating officer at the stage of him seeking prior approval under 17A here was the facts where he started was the complaint was made to the Loa the investigating officer had sought approval under 17A it is in those circumstances it was written all that is required under the provisions of section 17A of the ACT is that the investigating officer has some credible evidence on the basis of which he forms an opinion that an investigation is warranted this is all the complainant needs to do and this is all the honorable Governor needs to examine 31 since the public servant is yet to be investigated the question of considering any incriminating material and coming to the conclusion that an investigation is unnecessary would not really arise in this particular case since the public servant is yet to be investigated the question of considering whether there is any incriminating incriminating material or its veracity by the state government untenable and stand no logic or Reason at this stage it cannot be done is yet to be investigated by the then page 23 par 49 the argument that the materials collected have to be considered meticulously my learned friend in substance I'm paraphrasing his submission said that the order granting approval under Section 17A should be akin to a judgment of the Court dealing with each and every submission made by The Honorable chief minister no this is purely an Executive Administrative order it need not contain in par wise parah contention wise contention findings because that would be counterproductive to the very intent of section 17A that what this honorable Court says the argument that the materials collected have to be considered meticulously as indicated by this court in so and so cannot be accepted for the reason that in the S RIT petition the court was considering an order of approval in that case where the order of approval merely stated that government had meticulously considered the matter by use of the term so and so thoroughly checked check the relevant portion of the order reads as follows so this is a six page order it considers everything and I Am Lord showing to your lot ships and in my respectful submission Lord satisfactory that there is an application of M now please come to page 24 par 28 state of Maharashtra versus ishwar paji kpat what what documents should be scrutinized at the stage of sanction this is 19 the sanction under 19 prec cognizance another reason as given by the high court for quashing the sanction was that the order of sanction was signed by additional Chief secretary to the government of Maharashtra but there is nothing in this order to indicate as to whether the signator or any other officer on his part was the one who had personally scrutinized the file and arrived at a subjective satisfaction that is a legal prerequisite we do not find any warrant in law which requires a statement being made while according sanction that the officer signing the order had personally scrutinized the file and had arrived at the request required satisfaction they might say that the governor asks someone else to prepare the charts he can do that M any Authority can do that that this kind of clerical exercise of bifurcating in three different compartments you give it to me so that I can easily make up my mind then 12 this Prima shows that there has been an application of mind and that the material on record has been examined by the officers concern before for according sanction in view of the afor it there was absolutely no justification for the Learned Jud to observe that any such statement as indicated by him was required to be made in the order the Learned single judge made observations to the effect that the manner in which the sanction order has been passed would show that rather cavali treatment has been Meed out in the present case we do not see any justification for the court making such observations in the present case because the perusal of the order of sanction does not show any legal inity etc etc then on principles of natural Justice page 25 per 31 I I need not read this celebrated judgment ramj yes so I I know would be aware I placed it for immediate reference your lordship may not able to try and find out therefore I'm not reading it of that judgment yes we or and we have quoted 24 24 24 Ram yes 13 I'm sorry I'm I'm not uh then I'm coming to the next limb that in administrative action there is no hearing required I have already made my submission broadly that 17A is a stage where a very very Broad and Primacy view is to be taken whether it needs investigation then you have all the remedies once the f is registered you have the remedies and with which the approving Authority approval granting Authority is not concern at times it might happen that if an opportunity of hearing is read into the provision the provis the the act the object intent and purpose of the ACT frustrates the person might Lord destroy the evidence and in any case by the very nature of the power under 7 a which is purely executive and administrative administrative in nature but no hearing is necessary for that M Lord I wish to M site subramanyam Swami M Lord at page 27 par 36 at the foot M they have also cited but M this is the true ratio which is applicable in the present case Lord in fact we get we got very substantial assistance from the the Judgment compilation filed by them per 44 of subam Swami we may also observe that Grant or refusal of sanction is not a quasi judicial function and the person for whose prosecution the sanction is sought is not required to be heard by the competent Authority before it takes a decision in the matter this is for 19 19 19 but much higher threshold because the court is taking cogniz 178 was not there at all was not there at all because it it was introduced in 19 2018 18 yes I'm I stand corrected I'm obliged what is required to be seen by the competent Authority is whether the facts placed before it which in a given case may include the material collected by the complainant or the investigating agency Prima fa disclose Commission of an offense by a public servant this deals with the argument that principles of natural Justice are attracted at 17A stage if it does not attract even at the stage of 19 which is a higher threshold where the court is taking cognizance and therefore you are now an accused here you are only a suspect at 17 a stage 19 makes you an accused even there you are not supposed to be it's purely EX utive function administrative order similarly Judgment of Deepak Chri only per five the highlighted part yes sir we find force in the contention the grant of sanction is only an administrative function though it is true that the accus may be settled with the liability to be prosecuted in a court of law what is material at that time is that the necessary facts collected during investigation constituting the offense have to be placed before the sanctioning authority and it has to consider the material Prima The Authority is required to reach the satisfaction that the relevant facts would constitute either Grant or refuse to Grant sanction the grant of sanction therefore being administrative act the need to provide an opportunity of hearing to the accused before according sanction does not arise the high court therefore was clearly in error in holding that the order of sanction is vitiated by violation of principles of natural Justice the second ground of departmental exoneration by the disciplinary Authority is also not relevant what is necessary and material is whether the facts collected during the investigation would constitute the offense for which the sanction had been sought for L similar is ishal paji kpat again Lord at par 15 page 29 par 15 in our opinion there is a complete misreading of a fored provision by the high court in fact in vas Swami's judgment all this discuss yes your Lordships are avable I need not 91 3 yes my Lord that is k v Swami which is titled at par 16 page 30 Lord your Lordships are absolutely right page 16 foot at the bottom k v Swami case 913 because at every stage of uh the investigation inquiry that is made earlier you need not go on questioning the accused or elicit information confronting him or etc etc it is only when the investigation starts that the investigating agency does it the approving Authority in fact should not do it cannot do it and is not expected to do it other judgments are also Lord on the same line yes sir only one judgment Lord I I would wish to Lord place for your lordship's consideration is at page 36 but before that let me give the background yes sir my learned friend possibly being aware of the law on the point that even at the stage of sanction to take cognizance hearing is not read by The Honorable Supreme Court and supreme court has clearly said that no hearing is required he attempted to come out of that uh line of judgments by saying that in Rajesh Agarwal now after reading Mana Gandhi etc etc the law is that hearing is required Lord I I had an occasion to assist the court in that judgment Lord my learned friend was opposing me where Lord the facts were there is an RBI circular RBI circular provides for various steps to be taken by the Banks to find out before you declare one as willful defaulter or a fraudulent or a fraudulent defaulter because I may be in a genuine financial difficulty or I really had an intention to cheat and the consequences where if I'm declared as a fraud account then other banks will not lend me no loan my other accounts would automatically become NPA Etc serious Economic Consequences consequences the court bifurcated its judgment in two categories a the Civil part of it that when you declare somebody as a fraud fraud not as understood in the IPC or now BNS the fraud in the commercial banking sense of the term and thereafter there are some civil consequences because you go for statutary audit you go for forensic audit there are several things Etc and therefore you must associate him because without which forensic audit is also not possible forensic Auditors also would need your books of accounts your vouchers etc etc therefore the court said that you must hear him but the second category second option in the resolution in the RBI circular was that this is okay this is civil part of it but you can also register an fi and the argument was that when it is question of registration of an fi based on something fraudulent in this banking transaction I should be heard I raised the contention that there is no concept of hearing so far as invoking criminal in investigation power is concerned and M I believe uh inadvertently my learned friend M uh missed that part of the Judgment while citing page 36 Lord par 42 before f is lodg and registered no opportunity of being heard is required before an F is lodged and registered we are dealing with 17A which is a scenario prior to registration of the F so at the stage of f also you are not supposed to be heard where is the question of giving and hearing pre fi stage where I only Prima FY considering whether to permit you to register an fi or not this in my respectful submission in all fairness to the court ought to have been pointed out while relying upon my Lord Rajesh Agarwal because in fact I am relying upon it now page 31 37 nons supply of other two petitions does not invalidate the order I have already said hearing being not a prerequisite merely because in one case shoka's notice is given other two cases which are not dealing with any different distinct or completely a different offense they are the same so there is a com therefore the governor says that give me the comparative chart whether there is any difference if one allegation is some defalcation in my and another in Bangalore with different set B set ofs different particulars different authorities involved different officials conance with different people beneficiaries are different then my Lord maybe he may have in fact the governor says everything is the same is the same so you can't there is no difference in facts yes but when the facts are same then what is the I'm posing a question to myself Prejudice cause whatever was against you was given to you though was not required to be given to you but nonetheless in all fairness The Honorable governor gave it to you two other persons have also said the same thing which you were not given but your answer is on the same issue same allegation same set of facts same beneficiaries same documents therefore my Lord there is no Prejudice are you going to karak I'm going to Prejudice yeah yes no Prejudice yeah yes I am page 13 I have I can't match your lot speed and both your are aware 94174 where Supreme Court says Prejudice should be first established there it was established is said because inquiry officers report which was against him was not given was not pursu to the 42nd amendment that was the interpretation made that's there is no Prejudice cause even if all three complaints were not given to him and no show cause notice and the Order of approval would have been passed it would have Lord withstood your lordship's judicial scrutiny so that is the Judgment another is harana Financial Corporation kaas Chandra that is following karak yes then I am on Aid and advise H uh at page 41 Lord kindly read 164 p 41 page 44 page 41 yes sir Lord while the proposition is when The Honorable chief minister is a potential person to be investigated the aid and advice of his Council cannot be in constitutionally speaking taken and the answer is 164 apart from the judgments other Provisions as to ministers the chief minister shall be appointed by the governor and other ministers shall be appointed by the governor on the Aid on the advice of the chief minister so I as a minister owe my ministership to The Honorable chief minister it's from Caesars to Caesar f this is one example where without any hesitation one can reach a conclusion that in this case the governor cannot even look at the cabinet note though he looks at it examines it records are finding that I should not rely upon it both in law and on the count on account of bias and therefore my Lord he chooses not to rely upon it please see my Lord the judgment Lord before that M Lord kindly see par 55 at the foot M Lord it is further submitted that in accordance with Karnataka government transaction of business rules uh specifically rule 20 and 28 it cannot be said that the petitioner did not have any influence over the meeting conven to decide whether sanction may be granted against the petitioner a simple reading of rule 20 and 28 of the rules would make it clear that the petitioner enjoyed an overarching influence on his cabinet colleagues rule 20 reads thus cases specified in the first schedule to these rules shall be brought before the capin cabinet after submission to the minister in charge of the department cases other than those specified in the first schedule to these rules shall be brought before the cabinet by the direction of the chief Minister it goes to him his file whether the cabinet should Aid and advise the governor will go to the Chief Minister first then two the minister in charge of the department with the consent of the chief minister he has an overarching power that then M Lord At The Foot the decision of the chief minister regarding requirement of approval of cabinet shall be final he is the final Authority and it is not enough that he did not participate in the meeting of the cabinet because the process requires his participation it is he who decides to send it to the cabinet merely because he abstains from that particular meeting will not meet the ends of Justice this is without prejudice to my submission that irrespective of this in case of an honorable chief minister the governor is not supposed to act as per the aid and advis of the Council of ministers then Lord 28 at the foot rule 28 the chief minister or in his absence any other cabinet minister nominated by him shall Pride at the meeting of the cabinet so merely because he was not present doesn't absolve him of a possible bias because it is his own representative someone nominated by him who will be presiding over the cabinet and the cabinet M Lord and M Lord in his own reply page 630 an exture F says yes sir so please come to page 630 an exture F yes parah 3 at the foot last two lines at the bottom I have recused I I have recused myself from the meeting and in terms of rule 28 of transaction of business rule uh nominated Dr DK shivkumar deputy chief minister to chair the meeting so his representative was chairing the meeting and he nominated him that is at page 269 m page 269 Par Four the Urban Development secretary Lord writes this paror approval of the concern yes this is covering letter to the cabinet yes in background of the ab as directed by The Honorable chief minister under rule 20 of the rules the matter has been placed before the cabinet for deliberation 269 four there four yes the entire exercise my Lord is involved now my lords May kindly see my Lord at the cost of reputation also MP special police establishment act par 16 refers to Kar judgment all of us have read and reread kindly come to page 44 par 17 on the basis of the ratio in this case Mr sorabji rightly contends that by is likely to operate in a subtle manner sometimes members may not even be aware of the extent to which their opinion gets influenced in light of the OBS then kindly come to 62 uh I reading saming per first and then come back to MP judgment mord because my learned friend also read saming which is pre uh MP judgment M yes par 154 we declare the law of this branch of of our constitution to be that the president and Governor custodians of all executive and other powers under various articles shall by virtue of these Provisions exercise their formal Constitutional Powers only upon and in accordance with the advice of their ministers save in few well-known exceptional situations without being dog dogmatic or exhaustive these situations relate to a the choice of prime minister or chief minister restricted through this Choice Is by The Paramount consideration that he should command a majority B the dismissal of the government which he which has lost its majority in the house but refuses to quit office C the dissolution of the house where an appeal to the uh country is necess necessitous although in this area The Head of the State should avoid getting involved in politics and must be advised by his prime minister who will eventually take the responsibility of the step the Jud honorable Supreme Court says this is not an exhaustive list so this judgment will not come to the help the Judgment real judgment is MP judgment again my Lord which I have reproduced at in this chronology please come to parah 12 but perah 8 first the question for consideration is whether a governor can act in his discretion and against the aid and advice of coun Council of ministers in a matter of Grant of sanction for prosecution of ministers for offenses under the prevention of corruption act and or under the penal code this is 190 uh this is 19 sanction 19 sanction thus as rightly pointed out by Mr sji a seven judge bench of this court has already held that the normal rule is that the governor acts on the aid and advice of the Council of ministers and not independently or contrary to it but there are exceptions under which the governor can act in his own discretion some of the exceptions are set out here in above it is however clarified that the exceptions mentioned in the Judgment are not exhaustive this is by referring to samsher Singh therefore Lord I choose that chronology first MP then shsh Singh then again mp uh some of the exceptions it is however exhaustive it is also recognized that the concept of the governor acting in his discretion or exercising independent judgment is not alien to the Constitution it is recognized that there may be situations where by reason of peril to democracy or Democratic principles an action may be compelled which from its nature is not amenable to ministerial advice such a situation may be where bias is inherent and or manifest in the advice of Council of ministers the governor m in the present case records that the note the cabinet note is biased and that cannot be questioned my Lord by the accused Lord in a r petition then 19 article 163 has been extracted above undoubtedly in a matter of Grant of sanction to prosecute the governor is normally required to act on Aid and advice of the Council of ministers and not in his discretion however an exception may arise while considering Grant of sanction to prosecute a chief minister or a minister where as a matter of propriety the governor may have to act in his own discretion similar would be the situation with the Council of ministers disable itself or dis entitles itself the governor also records by their conduct they have disentitled themselves and propriety also demands Democratic principles demand that I act on my own discretion Mr tanka is not right when he submits that the governor would be sitting in appeal over the decision of Council of ministers however as stated above unless a situation arises as a result whereof the Council of ministers disable or dis disentitle itself the governor in such matter may not have any role to play take taking a queue from anle to so and so it is possible to contend that a council of ministers may not take a fair and impartial decision when their chief minister or other members of the council face a prosecution but the doctrine of apparent bias however may not be applicable in a case where a collective decision is required to be taken under a statute in relation to former ministers in a meeting of Council of ministers each member has his own say there may be different views or opinions but in a democracy the opinion of the majority would Prevail but here M collectively unanimously they have taken the same view without applying mind they have adopted some view there is one author and I if I may say so my Lord subject to being contradicted which I don't think they will be able to even the uh printer and the fonts are same like anyway that's not my ground in a in a scenario where sanction earlier approval now is sought to uh to not prosecute to register or investigate into the Affairs of Chief Minister it is only the governor who has to independently apply the mind not he cannot no even while considering sanction Supreme Court has said that when it comes to the Chief Minister it it is the governor's independent uh application of mind that is necessary and not on the aid of the ministers I that is what there are four or five instances where the chief ministers were sought to be prosecuted and sanction was sought then Aid of the ministers would not it's not re cannot be taken not only he he cannot take it even if he wants to he should not take it but I feel judgments should be there guess yes yes sir yes if on these facts and circumstances the governor cannot act in his own discretion there would be a complete breakdown of rule of law in as much as it would then be open for the governments to refuse sanction in spite of overwhelming material showing that a prim aesy case is made out if in cases where a prim aesy case is clearly made out sanction to prosecute high functionaries is refused or withheld democracy itself will be at stake it would then lead to a situation where people in power may break the law with impunity safe in the knowledge that they will not be prosecuted as the requisite sanction will not be granted but then next page bold part however on these rare those rare occasions where the effects on the bias becomes apparent and or the decision of the Council of minister is shown to be irrational there is a specific finding of the governor that because of these reasons the cabinet note is irrational and based on non-consideration of relevant factors the GU on facts of that case to act in his own discretion and granted sanction L this is the Constitution bench judgment my Lord and thereafter your L would find ramdas n Lord at page 49 ah that is where I think uh Supreme Court says that when it comes to the sanction of the chief minister yes I think governor should act right that is page 49 67 Abdul Rahman yeah yes yes yes RS only highlighted part I may read because or Lord let let me read the full we may add there is nothing before us to think page 49 I'm sorry page 49 perah 67 but the Judgment parah 10 I am reading yes we may add there is nothing before us to think that any such mistake occurred nor is there any ground taken in the petition for Grant of special leave that the Learned judges Pro judges proceeded on a staken view that the Learned Council had made a concession that there might arise circumstances under which the governor in granting sanction to prosecute a minister must act in his own discretion and not on the advice of Council of ministers the statement in the Judgment that such a concession was made is conclusive and if we may say so the concession was rightly made in the facts and circumstances of the present case we have no doubt in our mind that when there is to be a prosecution of the chief minister the governor would while determining whether sanction for such prosecution should be granted or not under Section six of the prevention of corruption act as a matter of propriety necessarily act in his own discretion and not on the advice of the Council of ministers lordship sir I'm grateful now my Lord my learned friend unnecessarily confused nabam Rabia the way he read nabam Rabia is helping me but I'll show lot how it helps me most of the judgments cited by him helps me please have a look at this nabam Rabia nabam Rabia was a case under schedule 10 the defection provisions and role of the governor visavi other constitutional functionaries now my Lord please see nabam Rabia refers to MP judgment and affirms it this is justice her's view for himself host and Justice ranaa and others have conquered it is a constitution bench all have conquered but they have separately recorded conquering views but this view of my Lord Justice K is for three honorable judges we may therefore summarize our conclusions as under firstly the measure of discretionary power of the governor is limited to the Scopes post postulated therefore under article 163 1 secondly 1631 the discretionary power of the governor extends to situations wherein a constitutional provision expressly requires the government Governor to act in his own discretion we are not concerned thirdly the governor can additionally discharge functions in his own discretion where such intent emerges from a legitimate interpretation of the provision concerned and the same cannot be construed otherwise this is important fourthly in situations where this court has declared that the governor should exercise the particular function at his own and without any Aid or advice because of impermissibility of the other alternative by reason of conflict of interest after relying upon MP judgment another Constitution B judgment is pleased to say this m then conquering view of my Lord Justice lur at the foot of page 50 yes parah 362 the development of constitutional law in India and some rather peculiar and extraordinary situations have led to the evolution of a distinct category of functions in addition to those postulated or imagined by the Constitution and identified above these are functions in which the governor acts by the Constitution and of the Constitutional necessity in view of the peculiar and extraordinary situation such as that which arose in mp special police establishment man act cited and approved and as arise in situations relating to article 356 of the Constitution or in choosing a person etc etc Sim similar is the view in conquering judgment last nabam Rabia does not dilute this and na Rabia also my learned friend had the honor of assisting the court so was me Lord I also assisted the court so I'm aware Lord this is not diluted because constitutionally speaking it is not capable of being dut then likelihood of bias in the decision of the cabinet M I have cited judgments I not reasonable man's theory yes uh time taken during Grant of approval for investigation they say that I acted hurriedly please uh see I I have shown Lord the uh list of dates which I have taken from their record only and please allow me to read this par so that there is no hurry undue hurry or something he attended to uh within 2 three days issued notice heard then charts prepared it's not as if I I received the complaint today and I grant approval today sometimes what happens is when we are dealing dealing with constitutional functionaries our pleadings as well as our submissions must Express that respect L to show that friendly Governor or the respondents have given comical replies Lord does not behove a constitutional functionary who is The Honorable chief minister I didn't say anything against The Honorable chief minister because he's a constitutional functionary that there can be several adjectives I can use merely because because some individuals have filed a complaint they do not become subject matter of a laughter or you being Lord labeled as comical or something but please see on this it is submitted that petitioner has raised the false issue of issuance of a sha notice dated so and so on the same day as the receipt of petition of respondent number three seeking Grant of sanction for prosecution in this regard it would be relevant to point out that the honorable governor was made aware of larger issue with respect to rupees 4,000 CR scam in relation to the irregularities in allotment of land by muda much before the issuance of shoko notice in order to discharge his duties as the head of the state of Karnataka and to ensure that the government was working in accordance with the constitutional principles The Honorable Governor deemed it fit and appropriate to seek a detailed report from the chief Secretary of the government of Karnataka in furtherance of the afor Sate The Honorable Governor wrote two letters dated so and so they have filed in the petition I am not placing any other document on record that is 5th July and 15th July in reply to the abor facts the office of The Honorable Governor received a letter in the form of a report from the chief Secretary of the government of Karnataka dated 26th July 24 that is again placed by them it is submitted that the narration of facts in the s report is verbatim and factual narration in the decision of cabinet yes lordship are at page 54 yes yes cabinet dated 1824 and the reply of the prti so some it was going on he was seeking information and at that stage Mr Abraham came in person he was examined his authenticity his identity was established he and and Lord immediately the notice was issued no but whether a decision taken in hottest haste would it viate the entire thing think when mere issuance of shoko notice would not show undue Hest because thereafter he gave sufficient time this shoko's notice a little step further Al if a decision of the state is taken in a hottest haste whether that would completely viate the entire it cannot viate sometimes sometimes as a con constitutional functionary entrusted with the Constitutional power it may be required that the moment he comes to know about it he has to immediately approve no this yes investigation that yes I am passing 17A you start immediately this cannot Brook delay sometimes a delay may result in mord an allegation of his deration of then my lord lord I have already said the contention that I have not taken any decision I have not made any recommendation then why are you bothered then you are like any other ordinary uh offender then 17A is not required then why should you challenge the approval you you say that 17A is irrelevant 17A cannot be relied upon because I have not taken any decision decision I'm not going into the facts where his role comes where how he benefited himself comes how the prevention of corruption Act is it its architecture is couched even the beneficiary is an offender that etc etc but it would be premature for me to arrive at any conclusion record any conclusion or argue before your lord CH I only said that yes needs investigation you investigate these are my respectful submission and I have Lord given judgments on this point so it's elaborate and I I'll not yes trouble youres kindly treat them as Constitution Ben judgment yes Justice YK saal I think 2004 3 even a decision take decision not this is only a notice being issued even a decision taken in hottest haste would not vitiate the decision I I am aware of it I I'll just that went from the state where KB allotments were made made in hottest haste that was some it starts with SP or something just yal I I'll find out and place for my lot's kind it was really pleasure and privilege to assist obl to lot these are the full text of the judgments which I have already cited I'll give the copies to my learn can you pardon my absence only for 5 seven I start yes sir I respond number four respond number four and I will not take much time because more Lordships have heard it repeatedly by various person Lord only thing is Mr Ragan Lord was to be here he's not here he'll just supplement Lord with your L permission for PO on Monday Lord I have a very humble submission my Lord from the different perspective from the perspective of a complain and mot who feels AG griev by the violation of the public trust in a democracy by this process Lord before I begin just just make a note of three figures yes the three figures m in my respectful submission which falls for your L kind consideration is 3 lakh 24,000 3 lakh 24,000 huh 5 lakh 98,000 and approximately 55 crores yes the land in question and I'm arguing a lot from the facts which have now come from their repeated same note and they clearly informed this honorable Court in the papers that the land of 3 acres plus 3 acres 16 gas which became a part and something important became admittedly a part of an acquisition process which commenced in 1992 land was acquired land was there cases that it should released my complaint it should acquired could not have been released everything is vo but before that mot to say mot that when we are in 226 whether he filed it or I'm standing here but your Lordships are having jurisdiction under 226 for investigation into apparent corruption should not get mord restricted by any objection technical or otherwise I'll come to that mord in mul Singh yadav's case mord I'll show to Lots in no time my first respectful submission I said submitted mot land approximately 3 ACR 16 gas and I all these these facts are admitted and wherever they are not admitted they will be my submissions part of a acquisition process for some third phase in this scheme aot in 1992 any sale or transaction after this small notification which is issued in 1992 is void except for the fact that a purchaser who a bona purchaser in a lawful manner may claim only compensation something more Lord a subsequent purchaser who may just get into the shows only for compensation not can't even ask for challenge to acquisition can get not get any benefit of any land policy or an alternate land Supreme Court has directly decided it therefore the the land acquisition process having commenced in 1992 concluded M the final notification in August 1997 possession taken and I'm going to cite mord indor development on two aspects what is the concept of possession taken and what is the concept of compensation paid or deposited few paragraphs but the relevant facts are 92 first notification 97 fin notification land acquired possession taken and something more important please make a note of P 94 of the r petition document filed by them the revenue record records muda the H 98 pay 94 yes in the middle of the parag in the middle of that page on the top your lordship will see the ownership and possession of muda page 94 yes but this is where muda is recorded this is 9899 yes and M Lord compensation mord is determined award is made yes so first notification before May 1998 which is the so-called D notification first notification 92 final notification 97 award 1998 and mord entry of Revenue record 98 therefore why investigation needed there a colossal fraud M of creating a case for release of the land under Section 48 48 Lord whatever little I know and I've learned Lord with the moment possession is taken even on a paper possession the land acquisition is complete the land West in the government thereafter 48 is not available I'm not saying lot I'm not arguing to justify that the some 48 is illegal I am lot as a citizen is praying and justification with material on record now confirmed by them of an investigation so two 3 lakh 24,000 where all this facade m is fraudulent and the Supreme Court says any transaction after section 41 that is the first notification renders every transaction thereafter void except entitlement to receive compensation now mord see what happens so the land mord which stood recorded in the land Revenue record in the name of mudai 98 aded next fact even when their grievance is even when it is there's a release notification it is not released it is developed as a development my answer mot as a citiz is this was never released it could not have been released therefore it continue to remain in possession of muda it continue to remain a part of the development scheme plots developed fold from 2001 to 200 plots developed on this land acquisition completed in 98 award made compensation deposited Etc will come to one more document development completed plots sold by written document Lear AG was a little uncharitable in his not saying it's only a paperwork my respector submission is entire thing to the contrary is paperwork so 2001 to 2004 plot sale Deeds are in existence sold nor the very same lands very same land admittedly admittedly it is no more remain and I am having a one more gance mot in the cabinet note a r petition order is cited the r petition order particular of the r are not given order is not shown and the foundation is made for giving these 14 sites to the petitioner's wife on the ground that I court has passed an order of a same nature in a similar case so I had the curiosity where is this judgment let us see this judgment in more five notes of the same kind fortunately Lord somebody gave the number I've got that order give the copy this is the order show to part of the cabinet not part of the opinion in m at some place number is given in the opinion number disappears the number disappears the name disappears similarity remains now what is this case somebody this is all the order this all is the order I'll show to your Lots just give me one moment I want to say something this is available downloaded from the I site I'll show that in any case they will have something more somehow you have to justify this release right Lord which release is X Lord prohibited by law would not have even been thought of without fraud fraud BL without fabrication this could not have been exed right so some of justification is to be made so some Babu must have prepared a not took the risk of mentioning the r number and the date of the order we somebody must have advice or make it as a part of justification this land mot was never a part of any acquisition process never but the subject lands were in my case it is land acquisition award made I say sir I'm coming to the notification don't worry this is a par shown and this one page order Lord which the details are missing in the legal opinion is in a case and because somebody could have easily understood it is no parity at all if you cite it and give the particular somebody reads it he will shout like me and I'm shouting because nothing becomes available without shouting nowadays not everywhere not necessary sir after shouting also no you're confident very well so Lord no acquisition process at all it was a clearly an infraction of article 300 capital A somebody includes your land without even putting it in the notification so the high court say return the land you not acquired it you are free to acquire it obviously if you need it becoming a part of any new scheme acquire it free to acquire it you never put it in any acquisition they never any award you have included into your development Please Release it release in the not 48 give it back restore it restitute it there's a difference between release and restitution this is not a parity now please see the pages second volume of the repetition and my my respectful submission is not to create a sensation or something mine is that it requires investigation now kindly see aot first of all page mot 275 this is a part of my dear friend mot my dear friends client mot shashi's client who have given a note the cabinet secretary on 26724 right my Lord yes at page 275 please make a note of par 24 I'll just read this for Cris lot sweet short lines in a similar case the land of shirati so and so my taluk number so and so detail of the land is given had been developed for layout without following land acquisition process some supping I say the land is never put to any process of acquisition it is one thing not following the process of land acquisition process in accordance with law is another thing it is a case where there is no land quisition process initiated and please see the next line petition had filed a r petition and Order dated 20 to 120 The Honorable high court has directed no mention of any number with treat petition who directed when directed nothing now Lord just go to this Lord second similar thing Lord at page 289 the part of my the Le opinion which starts at 279 and kindly see par 6.24 yes now I'm supposing with this order which I handed over to your lot ships yes a meeting has to take place to comply with that order or to challenge that order to meeting must have taken place Nal this meeting or this order had nothing to do with the present case and this order meeting is that it is never being become a part of any acquisition process therefore you are violating the fundamental right of ownership return it or you acquire it nor Lord after this your kindly come to page [Music] 352 which mord is a part of yes at page 336 the reply the cabinet meeting the cabinet note part of the cabinet to the show cuse notice Lord kindly see this starts at 336 yes and kindly come to 3 352 5.24 yes may I read this with your one paragraph in a similar case the land of so first five lines are verbatum which I read the note earlier but somebody forgot that this number is to be removed and M Lord this is repeated there is no number Etc and then your lord kindly come to page 32 the 5.24 r petition number 5604 and the date of the order which I ended over to your LS yes so when somebody m in a routine prepare the note the numbers come details come because the parity is the founded it is one of the main document for giving this order for taking this decision that the way you have returned that land of two two big two acres and some gas please return this also that was never a subject matter of any land acquisition this is land acquired award made entries made in the name of the government Etc now something more M something very curious kindly come to page 509 and 510 yes 509 and 510 please mark the date blot so a cabinet note is to be prepared and some justifications are to be created so such kind of vag documentation is generated engineer and I would not say fabricated at this stage because that would be a subject matter of Investigation I would say generated and engineered because that that may not sound comical M it may still be very respectful so it's engineered and this engineering is yeah it's a classic piece of engineering what is that sir we took we took the possession we completed the process but money was not taken by him the compensation money I can't read this if you kind have a look at that it I'm told it says therefore in development land acquisition process is complete that IND says nothing it's complete that is why I said I'm going to site two two paragraph both mot for the completion of the process kabza taken possession taken and the money tendered or money even kept aside straight away Lord Now 51 509 and 510 and just make a note along with this this is 4 July this is one day before at page 597 597 yes my Lord 597 now whether it is ENT because this is 5th July 5th July m is sent so whatever is to be done is to be done I am not saying it is ENT this letter M at 510 one day before this letter is received from The Honorable Governor it would be investigated right mot so I gave you lot two figures M 324,000 and M when this has all happened up to 2004 the land stood developed the sale Deeds for the developed plots executed 2004 a SD takes place of agriculture land V to developed and became non-existent because the land is developed and the plots are sold there is no agriculture land left no how did it become agricultural again well that's a magic there's no order for that I hope that the the if yours are convinced the investigation must take place the io should be equipped enough to find outs or I'll only pray to to the almighty yes no but kindly see it's a very serious issue M it is sought to be trivialized by this repeated process of repeated notes and when the Supreme Court says the governor will act independently a resolution passed to pressurize him by the cabinet kindly see the impact of it you are not supposed to do it you not permitted to do it and you do what law forbids to you to do and how as a cabinet and then we keep on banging the doctrine of public trust this is what public trust is with which we are Faith and M Lord it may our replies and our demand may be sound too comical to the other side but M Lord if in this case if in this case we are not able to persuade your lordship to discharge your ship Duty as a court which I will show them a lot then it may be tragic if not comical as my Lon friend used repeatedly what is to be done an investigation Supreme Court says no objections to be allowed to come in if it is investigation provided you are prima satisfied Lord even for framing of charge Lord which is after the cognizance and after section 19 and 197 State even for framing a charge one judgment I'll give it to you a lot shim lot weaker than Prima Cas strong suspicion Reasonable Suspicion Etc Supreme Court went to the extent of saying weaker than Prima FK even for framing a charge here I'm saying a lord XF High established case acceptance of The Honorable court for facilitating and permitting the conduct of a investigation by an independent Agency number two M Lord when Unison replies by the government by the cabinet by the law authorities how would this investigation be done by any state Authority they have taken a stand before your lord which is unisan I'm I with utmost responsibility saying Unison it is verbatum the same so if I am right Lord in begging that it needs investigation it can't be either by them or by my Lear friend Mr Chi now Lord in this background kindly come to a couple of judgments first of all on the public trust Doctrine you have your written submissions also I will I've got it some corrections are to be made before I leave or by tomorrow or day after tomorrow early morning it will be available I have also taken the liberty of reproducing the relevant paragraph so that this no all that you submitted now it is in the return sub unfriendly environmental behavior of ours may geted now first judgment kindly see but this is 1994 supplement 2 sec 116 yes where mord the grant of consent was sought to be withdrawn with mord also happened here day before yesterday I we had to see a lot of judgment in the other case mot I just wish to read mot I thought what I yes kindly come to page 8 para 15 yes I'm there I'm sorry I'm there I will only leave the par number which also I experience is not needed to be given here even if we don't leave the Judgment without number anything will work the way the notification has worked no number nothing Den notified yes par 15 L Market yes then kindly come to the second judgment model we your LS have dealt with your Lordships have dealt with M Lord yes and kindly only make a note of par number 52 actually 56 54 to 56 56 is what is yes 5 2 to 56 are citing but you watch kindly restricted to par 56 yes then Lord one paragraph which I wish to read which is at page 64 of this paper book is not that Muhammad ramdan Khan inquiry report that Constitution bench under the centr tribunal act karun this is this is the similarity of name with a greater population country where names are common yes this is K karak that is karak in my community that we have so much of shortage of names that the girl and the boy will have the same names so 140 grow people they find it difficult to have the have my learned friend who was my colleague Mr maninder Singh additional solic General and we had Mrs maninder Singh aara as additional solic General in case of no Singh suu his wife is also no do so this only shows mord a common feature in our society of shortage eight yes sir and first five lines par M that if it if a case is made out for any M investigation then there should not be per permissibility for any technical or other cour would discharge a duty that which mord would facilitate and mord ensure that the investigation is carried out I I can pause here for a moment Lear Sol explain case of the Kerala chief minister yes Lord I just want to take one minute here Lord it is not needed but Lord your Lordships have seen your Lordships have gone into this two judgments Lord which have now become the the foundation of the circular mord of your Lordships High Court which have gone I just want to say one thing Lord it may also with the with the development of law on Section 17A it may require a little tuning Etc because I tell you a lot why a lot what I feel and very humbly submit the preliminary inquiry as we know in the in the ordinary normal State Police it is f under the CR your lordship have dealt with many cases of CBI there are two concepts on first is PE and then RC the f is equivalent to RC registered case they say registered case RC by the CBI and P is preliminary inquiry the preliminary inquiry was by by the Mandate of the Supreme Court in a case called s a public servant M where they said that if if the FI that direct permitted to be registered day in and day out against public servant their functioning will be that's what is followed in L Kumari prior to paragraph they have repeated s in 116 and 117 yes Lord s judgment which gave this birth to the concept of e then Lord was also it got an entry into the CBI manual it became Clause 9 and 12 that's why they register p and then RC then RC now but as Lord held in Lita Kumari also if the blatant the cases exi can be seen even on the allegation on the information even when there is a permissibility of R PE it is not a must you are free to register you are obliged to register a case which is Lita Kumari so I need not go into this because 17 a is one m one area which is now pre-investigation only it's still exactly so my Lord if if a circular goes that your complaint or your grievance addressal before the criminal competent Court would be only with a permission under 17A if that is to be appreciated and understood by the courts then Lord whether I applied it on 4th of July or 31st of July the material because as a citizen what I need investigation must be carried out if something is required must be done the courts will decide whether it is required or not as a citizen I I do not want to get with a stumbling block that in my seeking my redressal through a process known to law if there is a requirement of this approval I must approach for approval and I must get approval the court will decide whether approval is needed or not that can't be read as something which is Comic therefore in that background kindly come to par 36 of the Judgment in Vish chat's case where my Lord kindly see Lord kindly come to page 66 66 yes Lord Vish chat kind mark it Lord it is petition under article 32 yes finally mark it on the top your she will get a petition yes yes soord some allegations against the chief minister of utar Pradesh a petition come directly to the honorable Supreme Court under article 32 the law is discussed and the direction is issued including par 36 before that I just want to show two paragraphs par 33 at 79 par 33 page 79 yes in our opinion yes in our opinion the the minuteness of the details furnished by all the parties and the income tax return and the assessment order sale deed Etc have to be carefully looked into and analyzed only by an independent agency I of your lordship Indulgence to keep in mind independent ageny and especially when the stand of everybody is unisan were bam that nothing has been made out carefully looked into and analyz only by an independent agency with the assistance of chared accountant and other credit engineer and values of the property as stated by the petitioner very valuable properties in the Heart of the City have been purchased for lower consideration and less than the market value please make a note of the third figure 55 cror to 3 lakh 24,000 5 lakh 98,000 is a sale Leed of 20 four of an agriculture land and 14 develop plots of land now given M Lord which is worth not less than 55 cres otherwise some statement made here and there on the media a lot more than 60 crores so this 55 crores which you have got I asked this question why should it not require an investigation what did you pay 6 lakhs in 2004 in a fraudulent transaction prohibited not permissible because there no agriculture land available in the name of that original person nothing and through this process by relying on a similar case which is not similar at all you have enriched for yourself or your family member at least 55 CR 55 crores and what is your Lordships are considering at the Hub of the matter should it be investigated or not I'm saying supposing there was no 17 and nothing the petition is before your lordship your Lordships are under 226 the criminal Juris Prudence is a locust neutral your lordship could do suot lotes are having a proceeding where 226 is invoked for praying for a criminal investigation my London friend client obviously has come to stall it your Lordships are fully equipped to pass an order here itself if your Lordships are satisfied that 55 CR is a bounty which is a clear exi violation of the public trust by a public servant now please see M pmla section three a beautiful two words mod in pmla which I didn't see except for 1 120b a process and activity kindly read the process here please see the process who has got benefited and how much and at what cost process activities noral dc36 at page 80 mam sing y he's a senior politician Cesar Caesar's wife should be above suspicion kindly see I'm not talking wi literally I don't mean to say anything any disrespectful thing to anybody he's a senior politician and holding a very high public post of chief minister in a very big state in India and the allegation thetion against him cast a cloud I am I am I am in submitting I my case is much better higher it's not a cloud it is exy demonstrable have cast a cloud on his Integrity therefore in his own interest it is of utmost importance that the truth of these allegations is determined by competent Forum such a course would sub serve public interest and public modality because the chief minister of a state should not function under cloud and that it would be in the interest of respondent number two and the members of his family to have their honor Vindicated by establishing that the allegations are not true and supposing they found to be true then these three figures 3 lak 24,000 5 lak 98,0 55 crores I don't know know where was I kindly see we have seen people struggle struggling for Bona causes for release under 48 some school building some part has also Fallen your lordship have so much of experience nobody gives you an year here something is developed acquisition completed plots sold and de acquisition and then sale of agriculture land which is not in existence now kindly come to the next judgment yes if you come to the Judgment M starts at page 91 on public the Dr mord in that NOA Enterprises Association case mord of 2011 6 page mot 508 par 30 8 m is 107 107 Par 38 yes the state or the Public Authority which hold the property for the public or which has been assigned the duty of Grant of lodger acts as a trust please now keep all these observations in my these three figures that they have to act as a trustee for that property M which is not less than 55 crores now if it is a public larges which has to go to a particular entity or a particular person of 55 crores through this illegal and completely unknown unknown process unknown to law in such a circuitous method and Lord it become 55 cres when it comes into your hand and therefore has to act fairly and reasonably every older of public office by virtue of he acts on behalf of the state is ultimately accountable to the people in whom the sovereignity rest as such all powers so vested in them are meant to be exercise public good and promoting the public interest every older public office is a trustee then par 39 40 41 and 42 then that observation respectful submission which I had made that even for the framing of charges the Supreme Court has said weaker than primy case page 126 par 12 par 17 the Judgment starts at page 109 126 para 17 just permit me to read two lines this is norom post 197 post 19 the court is applying its mind and the court has to frame charge where it is fully equipped with the material collected all evidences collected is to be considered yes framing of a charge is an exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court in terms of section 228 unless the accused is discharged under 227 under both these provision the court is required to consider the record of the case and document submitted there with and after the party May either discharge Etc it shall frame the charge the kindly see next two skip two three lines kindly see the sentence between just one line about Plum C the satisfaction of the Court already seen it marked I was just saying what was the offense in that case it was adment to Suicide yes that lady had died and then Lord this was the case where the but this was the principle laid down this is one judgment Lord which I which have been followed but the words of this weaker than Prime of case for Lord has appeared here yes and the Supreme Court has laid down that as a test yes 138 just make a note is a judgment M Lord uh of the tel I 138 actually it starts like this in the print from the I website 138 and bottom 138 bottom up to 140 up to two sentences on the top this one paragraph which is unnumbered I'm placing Reliance on this FL where this public trust doct has been applied by them rash in the r case yes and then kindly come to kindly come to page 291 in the same judgment the last par yes yes I just want to read this as discussed about yes I have discussed about the I can save time a lot I can skip it just make a note this is the repeating and reiterating the same principle in this if you just print this in your note that you give I will add it but one or two things which I want to show I want four five paragraph from in development P 368 368 Union of India versus shiv Kumar bab 19952 page 427 par 4 369 just permit me to read it yes the policy of the government this was policy for Land Land Development Etc land a lot developed land to be given person who whose land was the policy of the government indicat that the person whose land was acquired need the owner as on the date notification was notified for acquisition and he alone will be entitled to allotment of alternative site number the argument which your L would be required to deal with whether the den notification is to be accepted at all or not before investigation because that may bring a change but my Lord when I say that the the compensation determined compensation deposited and the land in the revenue entry is in possession got developed and sold then all these principles apply with full force and that is a that would be a subject matter of Investigation because I as I said Lord I am not defending a 48 release I'm only showing a high impossibility of that and therefore some see there is apparent that things have been engineered and created page 378 378 at 382 Pari this is the K celebrated judment followed various SN par five and the last just above Plum D the only right which he has is only for that monetary compensation that's all nothing else and this is has been followed mord repeatedly by Delhi iort mord which is at 384 at 398 para 9 and 10 now kindly come to their after 416 here M the the release was being made so that to enable to take away the land M Lord for the builders the Supreme Court cons this matter came from gur Arana where the continuous land Etc the government was government and was used to make larger chunks of land available to the builders because of the principle of contiguity and that where the Supreme Court heavily came down down on such an exercise and the relevant part is at 440 par 24 25 30 and 31 I'll put it in my note just you watch just make a note yes and kindly see M Lord par 31 31 power to release land from acquisition has to be exercise cons consistent with the doctrine of public trust here it has not taken place it's only generated now because they are mutually non they are mutually they can't coexist that is the development take continuing after the award and the money compensation development continue development develop plot fold they can't coexist noral triple4 is the Judgment in shiv Kumar's case M Lord youim may just make a note from par 7 on at 451 7im permit me to read one line yes seven at page 451 we advert to the Le first we advert to the legal position concerning the pchas made on 572 2001 made after notification under section 4 had been issued under the acquisition act law is well settled in this regard by a k of decisions of this court that an incumbent who has purchased the land and has no right and kindly see that quoted portion from Jal Nigam in the next paragraph Yes that apart since M so and so property the respondent had purchased the land under notification 41 was published the sale is void against the state the quoted portion more par 7.1 Par 3 it's void because the land has stood vested in the state it's vo kindly see parate at 455 it has been laid down purchasers on any ground uh whatsoever cannot question proceeding for taking possession a purchaser under section 4 not does not require any right in the land as the sale is Abino void and has no right to claim land under the land policy finally come to four paragraph which I indeed M with your lordship permission wish to read 465 in those development on two points as I said M on payment of compensation and taking over The Possession 578 par 116 just permit me to read four five paragraphs here M it would be helpful for me to explain and submit for your lordship consideration the points which I'm raising your lordship has seen that just one day before The Honorable Governor noted the letter is written by that the the compensation is not paid one day before now in that context kindly see 116 it is Apparent from a plain reading on section 16 that the land vest in the government absolutely when possess is taken after the award is passed and I have BL made two submissions for your lordship kind consideration for a case made out Prima FY for investigation is that M it already should entered into the revenue record as the government the as the owner and M the compensation should determined at 324,000 and M wherever to be deposited or given clearly MIM skipped four lines and then two lines above which last four line once an award is made and possession is taken by virtual section 16 land West absolutely in the state free from all incumbrances vesting of land is automatic on The Happening of the two existing exigencies of the passing award and taking possession as provided in section 16 one possession is taken under section 16 the owner of the land loses title to it and the government become the absolute owner payment of compensation under the ACT is provided under section 31 which is after passing of the award under 11 please come to 11 19 section 34 deals with a situation where any of the obligation under section 31 is not fulfilled when the amount of compensation is not paid or deposit on after taking possession of the land The Collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest there on because MIM just keep this in mind 3134 of the old act that even if it is not deposited what you can get a 9% interest please a l The Collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest at the rate of 9% from the time of so taking possession until it shall have been so paid or deposited and after one year from the date on which possession is taken interest payable shall be 15% the scheme of the 1894 clearly makes it out that when the award is passed under Section 11 and our case is old act this is applicable thereafter possession is taken as provided under 16 land vest in the state government under Section 122 notice of the a taking possession is not please mark it taking possession is not dependent upon payment payment has to be tendered under section 31 unless the collector prevented from making payment as provided and so and so in case of failure under 31 or 313 The Collector is not precluded from making payment but it carries interest at the rate of 9% for the first year and thereafter at the rate of 15% thus once land has been vested in the state section 16 case of failure to pay the compensation under 31 to deposit under 312 has to be paid along with interest and then four line thereafter in a case where possession has been taken Etc under 16 or 17 that emergency Awards Etc then kindly come to par 128 128 yes section 48 is qu quoted Constitution B also deals with Section 48 yes 48 is reproduced kindly come to last two lines of 48 just above 4 129 in case possession has been taken there cannot be any withdrawal from the land acquisition proceeding under so the question which is required for investigation obviously the other side would say we have a notification of some 30th of May 1998 of D acquisition but before that in 98 the land avue recorded the government is already the owner and the land is already part of the development scheme developed and sold so this would require investigation and if in the investigation if my submission is found to be correct that it is engineered and created later on then all these principle mord will cover and they will apply with full force therefore mord as of today there would not be any mord blockade or prohibition or impediment not that there should be not an investigation by an independent agency to do this not those who are in not by them those who are Unison with the petitioner now kindly see one or two more paragraph 129.4 which may just make a note I'm not reading page 659 with regard to possession P 659 the title is mode of taking possession par 246 247 yes and supposing in 247 a particular entry on the file or some kind of a p to be drawn up for the paper possession also who will find government revenue records and the possession is taken and it is given to the pool of the total 268 acre M for this third phase which stood developed it will only come out through that investigation because without this blot it could not have been a part of the Bo and M the part of the development and M the entry in the revenue record in the name of the government it was not possible those are the things mord which have taken contemporaneously in accordance with law thereafter mord the reversal has thought to be created page par 261 there after 246 247 then par 261 please see 261 first four lines I'm not reading just see Lord what was the requirement even going to the spot is enough Sy and here symbolically yes even symbolic POS absolutely and even going is enough and this is confirmed earlier there was a doubt whether because the new act now says physical position that also the court has considered now please mark that page 669 par 266 and M 366 which is the last conclusive portion and M few paragraph which I want to read only only to add what the learned solic and even my friend on the other side have read is suban Swami comp the compilation by the petition which is given there is this pay 271 pay 271 271 yes at 283 Lord par two and par three this is a private complainant applying for sanction yes par one and Par two and three just make a note because my Lear solic Journal read the other portion just for properly appreciating it two and three may be relevant it's a private complainant who go and seeks a sanction yes par 10 mot and then he is compelled to file a r petition in the I yes which is par 10 and then kindly come to parah 19 yes and what your Lordships observed my Lord if it is only a Prohibition against the police to proceed it does not create a locust andai for somebody or or prohibits a locust andai for someone else and your kindly see if if your kindly see 17 a and 19 your must be remembering only is this if I ask a question to myself that who will not proceed is given against whom you will not proceed is also given why is this that it is silent that who will seek it that's IM material that's not no I'm saying that that is the incorporation of the doctrine of locust standi neutral in the criminal Juris it is the Manifest if it were to be that an agreed person only can seek exactly it could have been there it is not that so therefore sub Swami explains lot that since the the crime is against the society everybody has got the loc that's why it is and therefore if you just see one paragraph here yes par 30 just see par 30 mot only for a moment at page 292 of volume one right of the Judgment compilation of my friend on the petition your lord was seeing this judgment of sub Swami there volume one and the printed page if the page is not handwritten these are the pages mod which have come in a small font in the printing itself this was given on the first day sub Swami's the Lear had also of which one you mean this that page par 28 par 30 and then 44 par 28 page page page it is 292 292 yes sir on the top is getting SM it's getting mixed now kindly come to 28 par 28 to pay number is 292 yes the sentence start there is no provision there is no provision yes there's no provision either in the 8 act or code of criminal procedure which bar the citizen from filing a complaint for prosecution public right to a committed offense therefore the argument of the Learned attorney that the complainant cannot file a complaint for prosecuting respond number merits rejection then anle and then par 30 kindly see par 30 while dealing with the issue relating to maintainability of private complaint the an portion is well recognized principle of criminal Juris Prudence that anyone can set or put the criminal law into motion except where so and so and 44 par 44 yes and Par 44 and then kindly see 44 Lord the middle of the line uh by the third line M Lord whether the facts play before which in a given case may include the material collected by the complainant or the investigating ageny see yes and you see that third line let me read it we may Grant of refusal sanction is not a qu judicial function and person for whose the proed sanction is sought is not required to be heard by the competent Authority before he takes a decision the matter what is required to be seen by the competent authorities whether the fact C before it which in a given case may include the material collected by the complainant or the investigating agency Prima fa disclosing Commission of so Source can be any person may be any then kindly make a note par 68 and 75 par 68 yes there today corruption Etc 75 now canly see 75 just permit me to read this few lines yes therefore in every case yes and this is also one of the concurring opinion in every case when an application is made to an appropriate Authority for Grant of prosecution connection with an offense under the PC act so please see appropriate Authority so whichever Authority whatever is needed I as a citizen have applied so what is to be done now for Grant of prosecution connection with the offense it is the bounding duty of such authority to apply its mind urgently in the situation and decide the issue without being influenced by any extraneous consideration in doing so the authority must take a conscious effort to ensure the rule of law and cause of justice is advanced in considering the question of granting or refusing such sanction The Authority is answerable to law and law alone therefore the requirement to take the decision with a reasonable dispatch is the ense in such a situation delay in gring censor proposal thoughts a very valid social purpose namely the purpose of speedy trial with the requirement of bringing the culprate to book therefore in this case the right of the saning authority while either sanctioning or refusing to Grant is coupled with a duty The sanctioning Authority must be in mind and up to 77 that mord the saying that there should not be any delay in that regard therefore mord if youim kindly see at the cost of repetition what I am submitting and making my humble submission mod for this respondent is that sufficient objective material with their admission now through the form of their notes and document has come on record and therefore M Lord investigation is needed whatever is required to me either to file a complaint or to apply to the governor under 17 whatever is applicable I have done so and mon in this jurisdiction under 226 not withstanding who has invoked it if your Lordships are satisfied M Lord that the case is made out that the investigation should not be impeded M Lord your lordship would consider that M and M decide the matter that's my respectful submission M only with the Liberty that I'll hand over my note with whatever I've read in by today evening or by Monday yes and Mr will has requested me to we will supplement it on Monday something grateful I have about half an hour continue 2:30 you have concluded yes 2:30 is also concluded yes we'll continue at 230 I may leave a little early today I'll I'll be there virtual or physical when then I'll work out the dates with the LA so you want to to the submissions already to put all this together now there a massive 61 Page Plus all these other things I want to in fact take some time to put things together into one single block so in any case is arguing so he can yes sir I any just clarification be excused for the last half an hour Cons considering the scope of the present petition whatever my learned friend Mr Singh argued obviously only for the purpose of showing that it's not just a hezard way of proceed Ting someone there is a material so it's the scope of the petition would not include defense Etc while your lordship is rising this is not the right time but I'm very very touched by this slight very mild caveat I didn't interrupt Mr Singh once but it's going to be my argument that my sanction my leared friend has argued anything but sanction he has argued merits every case he has cited is a case he goes to the extent of saying in my sanction petition your Lordships can become a 226 Court to Grant him sanction that's his argument no no no no no no is that there is abundant material no that you your defense get equal you can't argue on defense because loc neutral therefore anybody can come Governor must Grant sanction because anti-corruption public trust Doctrine we are arguing a sanction under 17A or 19 or whatever it is not a word about it but any that's why I need some time to analyze these Cas what these are about they are chalk and cheese BS we talking about North Pole and South Pole subject yes we'll continue pleas yes thank you sir you e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e interest in the Council of ministers therefore two situations arise one is the Council of ministers can say we disable ourselves from giving an advice in this matter to the governor on account of the fact that there is likelihood of a conflict of interest this is what the honorable Supreme Court says there two scenarios either when the Council of ministers disable themselves the second one is interesting not they use the word they become disentitled to Aid and advise the government but may I just emphasize Lord on that particular word what they use there in the that's paragraph 10 of the judg yes I referring to MP special police establishment where they extract RS n may I request Lordships to kindly see para 23 what's in that but this is in the petitioners compilation of judgments at page 258 yes sir please the word mods apparent vas versus likelihood of a has been emphasized after quoting RS nyak at M para 13 May kindly Peru that yes Mr s also points out that is the commences from that sentence yes sir now may I request Lordships to kindly see the next page at page 261 261 26 see one of that compilation I'm sorry I holding your compilation we have also given MP special ifting MP special establish that's paragraph then paragraph 19 paragraph 13 13 yes first please next 19 in 13 what's just one sentence I want to emphasize Lordships get that the statement yes par 11 extract of RS naak in mp par 11 the question then is whether we should permit the state of Maharashtra to resile from the concession made before the high court and rais before as the contention now Advanced by the Learned attorney general we have not the slightest doubt that the cause of Justice would be know no way be Advanced by permitting the state of Maharashtra to now resile from the concession and agitate the question posed by the Learned Attorney General on the other hand we are satisfied L get that yes that the concession was made to advance the cause of justice as it was rightly thought that in deciding to sanction or not to sanction the prosecution this is the telling statement by The Honorable Supreme Court not to sanction the pro prosecution of a chief chief minister the governor would act in the exercise of his discretion and not with the aid and advice of the Council of ministers the application for Grant of special Life Special leave is therefore dismissed then Lis May kindly see paragraph 20 23 24 26 23 not m 23 Mr tanka yes is not right when he submits that the governor would be sitting in appeal over the decision of the Council of ministers however as stated above unless a situation arises as a result whereof the Council of ministers disables or dis entitles itself the governor in such matters may not have any role to play taking a Quee from anul it is possible to contend that a council of ministers may not take a fair and impartial decision when the chief minister or other members of the council face prosecution but the doctrine of apparent Bas however may not be applicable in a case where a collective decision is required to be taken under Statute in relation to former ministers that is the distinction what they have made uh about former ministers Chief ministers and sitting ministers ultimately 33 is what is important therefore they of course not there they found the persons Ms against whom this sanction was what had by that time ceased to be the ministers and the cabinet did not have them as part of the therefore they said the theory of apparent bias will not apply likelihood of a bias is likely to be but then reason found that it was reason man would think that's the theory my submission limited submission before your therefore is the Council of ministers by virtue of the fact that they become interested in the matter dis entitled thems from any Aid and advice to the council ministers but quickly about the honorable chief minister remaining outside the meeting therefore the deputy chief minister presiding over the one I must say that very judgment interestingly they quote AK kryak but AK kryak L are aware that nashb interestingly was the chairman of the selection board and had also participated in the selection process apparent by us there interestingly nashb did not participate in the proceedings may I just request Lord to kindly see the same judgment once again MP special police establishment their lotes note this and says still the theory of apparent Bas will continue to apply that nashban act not let at par 16 let's this is para 16 they extract para 15 yes but there lot the sentence commencing from it is true that ordinarily the chief conservator of all that Lords may not refer to kindly see from the word but under the circumstances it was improper to have included nakan as a member of the selection body he was one of the persons to be considered for selection it is against all canons of Justice to make a man judge his own cause it is true LS May kindly note it is true that he did not participate in the deliberations of the committee when his name was considered but then the very fact that he was a member of the selection board must have had its own impact on the decision of the yes the word his Bas is likely to operate in a subtle Manner and therefore the presence of the chief minister in this case and there must be felt om omes presence brooding presence we say in the hall in the hall wherever this meeting took place but on this question Lord will also kindly see article 163 does not bifurcate between Council of ministers and the chief minister article 163 in fact says there shall be a council of ministers headed by the chief minister and in the theory of collective responsibility Etc Lordships are aware of those the question of not chief minister bifurcating himself from the decision of the Council of ministers does not arise therefore what on looking at this aspect the question of not the governor consulting or looking into the aid and advice of the Council of ministers does not arve but on the question of uh the second aspect what Lord Chiefs will kindly see about principles of natural Justice 178 yes sir but there is of course before I adver to this they have have cited several judgments including shamsher saying AR mea to say that Governor cannot act in his individual discretion Etc including nabam R of course all these decisions which their Lordships have laid down were in different contexts for instance in Sher Singh's case uh subordinate judicial officer was dismissed by the minister concern without reference to the governor they were were asked to reconsider sardar's case where for the first time sardar's case held satisfaction of the president or the governor means the governor himself and not that of the Council of Minister therefore authoritatively they held satisfaction of the president under article 74 or of the governor under article 163 must be construed in a democratic quality like ours is to be that of the satisfaction of the Council of ministers therefore the principles of shamsher Singh was different in AR the appointment Lo was in interpretation of the Gujarat Lo act where Chief Minister's Primacy there of course now the law stand settled from a decision arising from our this honorable cour chra just ch versus J it is Primacy of the opinion of the chief minister which will third decision these are the three decisions which they have cited is naam Ria there again article 174 the power of the governor to call for a session progue it and in the factual situation of that they said that no it could not have been done in individual distinction two decisions of The Honorable Supreme Court similar fact situation as to when the chief Minister's complaint or allegation against the chief minister comes the governor is bound to act independently therefore the decisions may have to be discour distinguished in this man but on the question of 17A 17 a on a plane reading does not uh contemplate a notice to the public servant concern that's whe but whether we can read into that as uh an opportunity to be given to the public servant concern before the not competent Authority arrives at a decision but I would uh request Lordships to kindly permit me to refer to subramanyam Swami versus director CVI it is not that not these Provisions like 17A or novel Lordships are aware in number of enactment Ms permission to investigate a threshold bar is always there one of them was section 6 C of the Delhi special police establishment act which there lot in this subam Swami's Cas struck down but one of the arguments Advanced by Mr Anil diwan in that matter I I propose to draw that wherein he says if you allow this notice to be given to the public servants Etc concerned at this stage it would certainly lead leave the situation for tampering of evidence Etc may I request Lordships to kindly see that Jud 14 yes para 14 I'll read for my that of course what I must bring to lordship's notice that paragra though he Advanced that argument the lordship of course Struck it down on the ground of article 14 you can't a different bate corrupt officers into joint security and above and below their Lordships held it in that manner par 14 I just read Anil ban learned amas wants us to take judicial notice of the fact that the high level bureaucratic corruption goes hand in hand on many occasions with political corruption at the highest level this very group of high ranking bureaucrats whose misconduct and criminality if any requires to be first inquired into and thereafter investigated can thwart defeat and impair this exercise in substance the potential accused would decide whether or not their uh conduct should be inquired into he argues the essence of skillful and effective police investigation is by collection of evidence and materials secretly without leakage to the destruction or tampering of evidence and Witnesses such such investigation is compromised by the impune Provisions namely section 6A of the DSP act with the next sentence the requirement of previous approval in the impune provision would mean leakages as well as breach of confidentiality and would be wholly destructive of an efficient investigation yes therefore if the argument of the other side is to be accepted let us take a case where there is an allegation that a document has been forged by the public servant concerned or any number of illustrations could be given and the police officer who receives this credible information or a private citizen who comes to know of it goes to the competent Authority and says sir I have come to know about a particular delinquency of a public servant concern I want immediate investigation to be initiated maybe he be apprehended search be conducted these material objects be the incriminating material be seized would stand defeated mots if notice is to be given to the delinquent employee or the public servant concern but this is one way of looking at it and I draw the argument of Mr danan when he argued DSP act for the purposes to say that 7A expressly 17A expressly consciously excludes notice one more perspective about this would be Lordships are aware this 17A and 19 came to be amended but in 2018 for the first time in 2018 when a private citizen files a complaint under section 19 notice to the public servant is contemplated Lordships have seen that 19 Lordships are aware that when a private citizen comes to him the steps are that he goes before the magistrate magistrate finds some prime offic case refers him to go to the competent authority to obtain sanction he goes back to the competent Authority and then competent Authority is obliged to issue notice to the public servant concern that is the provision but the submission which I propos to make before your lordship says in one stroke in one legislation if the legislature has thought it fit to prescribed two different procedures in respect of s one is of course a sanction and another is a preap in respect of sanction by a private citizen it says that notice is required in the same amendment when they introduce 17A the concept of notice is very conspicuously consciously silent construction of a statute according to me therefore it cannot be stretched to say that the legislature was not aware that when 19 we provided opportunity to be heard 17 we do not provide 19 operates in a different circumstance all the time post investigation no all the time no all the I am submitting before your concept of hearing the concept of hearing is afforded in 19 17A it is not done so very consciously in fact I am submitting the that the when the legislature by the same Amendment make provides two different procedures therefore this aspect that prior opportunity should have been given does not Merit but there are three judgments one of course the Learned solicitor general has read that is that is Lord will kindly only one judgment I want to refer to on the question of principles of natural Justice in criminal proceedings that deanan Singh versus State Singh dendra Singh vers State Singh that's the first one may I request Lordships to kindly see that page 52 par 52 no page par 52 not page 79 yes what is audio alart laws