Prosecution sanction requires independent application of mind; reconsideration on the same material is impermissible without fresh evidence.

A sanctioning authority cannot revisit an earlier refusal and grant prosecution sanction on the same materials unless fresh material, not previously available, is placed before it. Sanction is a statutory decision requiring independent application of mind, and it is invalid if the change in stance is driven by extraneous directions or external influence. On the stated facts, the later sanction orders were held unsustainable because no fresh material was shown and the record indicated influence from the CBI and the Central Vigilance Commission. The sanction orders were quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the sanctioning authority could reconsider and grant sanction for prosecution on the same materials after having earlier declined sanction; (ii) whether the impugned sanction orders were vitiated for want of independent application of mind and for being influenced by extraneous directions from the CBI and the Central Vigilance Commission.

Issue (i): whether the sanctioning authority could reconsider and grant sanction for prosecution on the same materials after having earlier declined sanction.

Analysis: The governing principle is that a sanctioning authority may revisit its earlier refusal only if fresh materials, not earlier available, are placed before it. A mere change of opinion on the same material is impermissible, because sanction is a statutory decision that cannot be reopened indefinitely by reappraisal of identical facts.

Conclusion: The reconsideration on the same materials was impermissible and the sanction could not be sustained on that basis.

Issue (ii): whether the impugned sanction orders were vitiated for want of independent application of mind and for being influenced by extraneous directions from the CBI and the Central Vigilance Commission.

Analysis: Sanction for prosecution must be the product of the sanctioning authority's own independent judgment on the materials placed before it. The record showed that the change in stance followed the intervention of the CBI and the Central Vigilance Commission, while the impugned orders themselves did not disclose any fresh material or refer to the earlier refusals. This disclosed lack of independent decision-making and an external influence incompatible with a valid sanction.

Conclusion: The impugned sanction orders were invalid for want of independent application of mind and for being the product of extraneous influence.

Final Conclusion: The sanction orders were quashed, and the writ appeal together with the writ petition was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: A sanction for prosecution cannot be renewed on the same materials after an earlier refusal unless fresh material justifies reconsideration, and the sanctioning authority must reach its decision through an independent application of mind free from external pressure.

---