Sanctioning Authority U/S 17A Prevention Of Corruption Act Must Apply Mind To Both Complaint, Other Materials Related To Accusations: Madras HC

“While satisfying himself before granting or refusing to grant approval under Sec.17A of the PCA, the authority concerned is required to apply his mind not just to the complaint before it but also to other materials which may throw light on the allegation and need for a prosecution,” the court said.

In the order passed before his retirement, Justice N Seshasayee observed that while the authority granting approval need not examine all the materials and evidence before it, the authority still had to apply its mind and satisfy itself as to whether the nature of decision taken or recommendation made leads to a bonafide suspicion.

“An authority granting approval need not examine all the materials the way the Court may examine the evidence before it; but such authority still has to apply his mind to such materials which his expertise, familiarity and knowledge in the field may direct him to probe to satisfy himself as to whether the nature of decision taken or recommendation made leads to a bonafide suspicion about the integrity of the public servant,” the court observed.

The court also noted that while the order granting approval under Section 17A is an administrative order which is not justiciable, a collateral argument could be placed before the court while challenging the FIR and it is always open to the Court to consider the quality of approval granted. While considering the materials, if the court has reason to believe that the FIR is vexatious, motivated, or triggered by malafide or that the decision taken by the public servant is Bonafide, the approval under Section 17A would become critical for the case.

The court added that during the hearing, if the courts opine that the quality of application of mind is inadequate, but the investigating agency has gathered incriminating evidence during the course of the investigation, the quality of the approval would not impact the sustenance of the FIR.

The court was hearing a plea filed by K Shiva Kumar to quash the FIR registered against him for offenses under Section 120-B, 406, 409 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case against Kumar was that was working as the Commissioner of Pallavaram Municipality he had awarded contracts to some private companies and floated tenders without following due process.

While challenging the FIR, Kumar contended that the FIR was borne out of a personal grudge between him and the de facto complainant, who was already being prosecuted for blackmailing Kumar and other Municipal Commissioners, IAS, and IPS Officers. He submitted that when the bonafides of the de facto complainant itself was questionable, the DVAC had erred in not examining the aspect.

Kumar also submitted documents and other materials to argue that his decisions were Bonafide and he had not caused any monetary loss to the State exchequer. He further argued that the approval granted under Section 17A was without any application of mind and the allegations were vexatious, false and made out of spite and ill will.

The court noted that the power exercised by the Government under Section 17A is neither judicial or quasi-judicial. However, the court emphasised that merely because the power is administrative, it was not outside the purview of judicial review. The court stressed that in the present age of evolved constitutionalism, there was nothing as unreviewable powers.

“The power exercised by the Government is merely administrative in character. Nevertheless, it does not follow that merely because it is administrative in character the exercise of such power is outside the ken of judicial review. In the present age of evolved constitutionalism, there is no such thing as unreviewable powers,” the court said.

After perusing the materials, the court noted that the prosecution had not been able to unearth any materials to show the involvement of Kumar in the alleged offences even after 6 years. The court noted that a reasonable suspicion would arise as to whether Kumar was being targeted. The court also wondered as to how the authority granted approval under Section 17A when there were no incriminating materials till date.

Thus, noting that the allegation in the FIR is wobbling and the quality of materials placed before the court is unstable, the court was inclined to quash the FIR and ordered accordingly.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Ravi Anantha Padmanaban Senior Counsel

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. J. Ravindran, Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr. K. M. D. Muhilan Government Advocate [Crl Side]

Case Title: K. Shiva Kumar v State and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 9

Case No: Crl. O. P.No.16673 of 2024