Sanction for prosecution remains valid when later approval reflects application of mind after CVC advice.

Sanction for prosecution was upheld where the competent authority's earlier communication was treated as an internal opinion seeking further action, not a final refusal of sanction. The later sanction order, issued after considering CVC advice and the underlying materials, showed application of mind and was not mechanical. In the absence of two contradictory final sanction orders or proof that the later decision lacked consideration, the challenge to the sanction could not succeed, and the writ petition failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the sanction for prosecution was liable to be quashed on the ground that the competent authority had earlier expressed an opinion not to accord sanction and later granted sanction without any fresh material after reference to the CVC.

Analysis: The earlier communication of the Commissioner was treated as only an internal opinion seeking further course of action and not a final refusal of sanction. The subsequent sanction order was passed after consideration of the CVC advice and recorded application of mind to the materials. In the absence of two contradictory final sanction orders or proof that the later decision was issued mechanically or without consideration, the challenge to the sanction could not succeed.

Conclusion: The sanction order was held valid and the writ petition failed.

---