Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Present writ petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 25.8.2010, contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, by which the representation of the petitioner has been rejected.
The petitioner has been charged for the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Prosecution was sanctioned by the competent authority which was impugned before this Court in writ petition No.7475(M/B) of 2008. The writ petition was decided finally order dated 28.8.2008 directing the respondents (Director) to consider the objections raised by the petitioner. Now, by the impugned order, the petitioner's objection has been turned down and the representation has been rejected.
The petitioner's counsel submits that one Bhawani Shanker Chaudhary has been relieved by the respondents and no decision has been taken to prosecute him.
We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order which amounts to setting aside of the sanction accorded by the respondents.
In case on the basis of the allegations available on record, no case is made out to prosecute the petitioner, then the petitioner has got remedy to challenge the First Information Report or complaint filed by the respondents. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. However, while considering the matter with regard to lodging of the First Information Report/prosecution, the respondents shall also take into account that Bhawani Shanker Chowdhari has been relieved and no decision has been taken to prosecute him.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition may be dismissed as withdrawn. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
Order Date :- 29.9.2010 kkb/