Chavan gets HC relief in Adarsh case

◗

the J. A. Patil Commission and that of the single bench in which the court had refused to delete Chavan’s name from the list of the accused as fresh evidence. On the basis of that, Mr Rao had revised the earlier refusal and gave his sanction.

The court order said, “The sanctioning authority is independent which cannot allow itself to be influenced by any opinion. Thus, this is the case of absence of material and in the absence of material, the earlier order of refusing sanction cannot be

The court had refused additional Solicitor General Anil Singh’s contention that Mr Rao’s sanction can be challenged, but at the trial stage. The court said, ‘ It would amount to abuse of process of law’

reviewed. It is not the case of non application of mind therefore, the same must be dealt with at the earliest possible in order to avoid ignominy to the public servant and this court can entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”

The court had refused additional Solicitor General Anil Singh’s contention that Mr Rao’s sanction can be challenged, but at the trial stage. The court said, “It would amount to abuse of process of law”.

“Neither the extract of the Justice J. A. Patil Commission report nor the order passed by the single judge of the court are admissible as evidence therefore, it cannot be considered.

“In the absence of fresh material, the governor has no jurisdiction to review the order of the earlier governor,” it said.

“The material which is required to be considered by the sanctioning authority is not limited to the evidence collected by the investigating agency during the course of investigation,” said Justice Ranjit More.

However, the court held that such material must be admissible and capable of being converted to evidence, which can be substantiated at the trial stage.