Prosecution sanction requires fresh material and independent application of mind; a reversal on the same record is invalid.

Sanction for prosecution must rest on the authority's independent application of mind to relevant materials. Where sanction was first refused after examining the record, a later grant on the same materials, prompted by vigilance advice and without new independently collected evidence, amounted to an impermissible reconsideration of the earlier decision. The Court held that such a reversal cannot be sustained because statutory discretion must be exercised afresh and free from extraneous influence. The sanction order was therefore invalid and set aside, and the writ petition succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the sanction for prosecution granted after an earlier refusal, without fresh materials and on the same record, was vitiated as an impermissible review.

Analysis: The earlier competent authority had refused sanction after examining the materials and had taken the view that prosecution was unwarranted. The subsequent grant of sanction was made after the matter was re-placed before the same authority following vigilance advice, but the materials relied upon were not shown to be new or independently collected after the first refusal. The Court held that sanction is a statutory discretion requiring independent application of mind, and that an authority cannot reconsider and reverse an earlier refusal on the same materials merely because of external advice or pressure. The record showed that the so-called fresh materials were already before the authority when sanction was first declined.

Conclusion: The sanction order was invalid and was liable to be set aside; the writ petition succeeded.

Final Conclusion: A prosecution sanction cannot be sustained when it represents a reconsideration of an earlier refusal on the same materials rather than a fresh, independent decision based on subsequent relevant material.

Ratio Decidendi: Once sanction for prosecution has been refused on a set of materials, the sanctioning authority cannot reverse that decision on the same materials; a valid reconsideration requires fresh material and independent application of mind free from extraneous influence.

---