Smt Poornima C S v. The State of Karnataka

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 12229 OF 2026 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

¶1SMT. POORNIMA .C.S W/O RAMESH D S AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS TAHSILDAR R/AT VISVESHVARIAH EXTENSION RING ROAD, HASSAN-573201. …PETITIONER

(BY SRI. P.P.HEGDE, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SAMEEKSHA .T.R, ADVOCATE)

AND:

¶1THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

¶2UNDER SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001.

¶3KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA BY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE M.S. BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001.

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

4. LOKAYUKTA POLICE STATION CHIKKMAGALURU-577101

¶5ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TARIKERE SUB-DIVISION CHIKMAGALUR-577228.

6. TAHSILDAR TARIKERE CHIKMAGALUR-577228. …RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. B.S. PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4; V/O DATED 16.04.2026, SMT. NAVYA SHEKAR, AGA FOR R1, R2, R5 AND R6)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 12.05.2025 ISSUED BY R-1 ACCORDING PERMISSION UNDER SECTION 17A OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 VIDE ANNX-J.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL ORDER The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India calling in question the order dated

12.05.2025 passed by respondent No.1, whereby permission/sanction is accorded under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, "PC Act") to

conduct enquiry/investigation into the alleged acts of misconduct attributed to the petitioner while discharging her official duties as Tahsildar, Tarikere Taluk.

¶2The facts, in brief, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows: The petitioner served as Tahsildar, Tarikere Taluk from 29.06.2022 to 31.07.2023 and was subsequently transferred to K.R. Nagar, Mysuru, and thereafter to Kadur Taluk, where she is presently serving.

¶3It is the case of the petitioner that after a lapse of nearly one year from her transfer from Tarikere, she received communications dated

04.11.2024 and

07.11.2024 from respondent No.4/Assistant Commissioner alleging that five individuals were illegally granted lands by way of regularization without proper authority. On seeking documents, the petitioner asserts that only xerox copies of Saguvali Chits were furnished, which, according to her, are fabricated and bear forged signatures. It is further

contended that upon verification of the committee proceedings, the names of the said five persons were interpolated subsequently in different handwriting.

¶4The petitioner claims to have submitted a detailed reply dated 08.11.2024 highlighting the alleged forgery and requesting an enquiry. However, respondent No.4 proceeded to seek sanction from the Government to initiate action against the petitioner. Consequently, sanction under Section 17A of the PC Act was accorded to conduct investigation.

¶5It is also brought on record that an earlier sanction for prosecution relating to alleged violations under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and allied Rules was granted, which has been stayed by this Court in W.P. No.3423/2025.

¶6Learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the impugned sanction order is vitiated as it records a definitive finding of guilt against the

petitioner even before investigation; that the authority granting sanction has pre-judged the issue, thereby rendering the sanction non est in law; that the very foundation of the allegations is based on fabricated documents, which the petitioner herself has exposed; that once earlier sanction for prosecution is stayed, the present sanction for investigation is unsustainable.

¶7In light of the rival contentions, the following points arise for consideration: "(i) Whether this Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, ought to interfere with an order granting sanction under Section 17A of the PC Act for the purpose of investigation?

(ii) Whether the observations made in the impugned sanction order vitiate the sanction on the ground of pre-judgment?"

Finding on Point Nos. (i) and (ii):

¶8Section 17A of the PC Act is a protective provision introduced to safeguard honest public servants from vexatious and frivolous enquiries in respect of decisions taken in discharge of official functions. At the same time, the provision does not create an impregnable shield against investigation where allegations disclose prima facie material warranting enquiry.

¶9The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh and Another (2012) 3 SCC 64, has underscored that sanction provisions are procedural safeguards and not adjudicatory determinations of guilt. Similarly, in Anil Kumar v. M.K. Aiyappa

(2013) 10 SCC 705, it has been held that prior sanction is a precondition for investigation, but the grant of sanction itself is not amenable to meticulous judicial review at a pre-investigation stage unless it is shown to be wholly without jurisdiction.

¶10Various High Courts have consistently held that an order granting sanction under Section 17A of PC Act merely enables investigation and does not determine culpability. Interference at this nascent stage would amount to stifling a legitimate enquiry.

¶11A careful perusal of the impugned order indicates that the authority has recorded that there exists a possibility of illegal land grant and that enquiry may reveal further irregularities. Though certain expressions used in the order may appear to be strongly worded, this Court is of the considered view that such observations cannot be read in isolation or construed as a conclusive finding of guilt.

¶12Sanction under Section 17A of the PC Act is administrative in nature. The authority, while granting sanction, is required to apply its mind to the material placed before it to ascertain whether a prima facie case exists warranting investigation. Such prima facie

satisfaction may sometimes be articulated in language which appears conclusive, but in essence, it remains only tentative.

¶13This Court is therefore of the view that the observations contained in the sanction order are pervasive in expression but limited in legal effect. They must be construed as confined to the formation of opinion necessary for granting permission to investigate and not as a declaration of guilt.

¶14The petitioner has taken a categorical stand that the documents are forged and fabricated. If that be so, the same constitutes a serious allegation which necessarily requires a thorough investigation.

¶15The principal contention urged by the petitioner that the names of five individuals were subsequently interpolated in the proceedings register by unauthorized insertion in different handwriting, and that the said records were at all material times in the custody of the concerned

case worker in the office of the Tahsildar, coupled with the further plea that such interpolation has allegedly occurred after the petitioner's transfer, thereby shifting the liability upon subordinate officials, cannot be gone into or adjudicated in exercise of writ jurisdiction at this stage. Equally, the allegation that the so-called Saguvali chits are fabricated documents created by forging the petitioner's signature and setting up false records, are matters which squarely fall within the domain of investigation. These are serious and disputed questions of fact which necessarily require a thorough probe by the competent investigating agency.

¶16This Court is therefore of the considered view that all such contentions urged by the petitioner, including the plea of forgery, interpolation of records, and involvement of other officials, can be effectively examined and unearthed during the course of investigation. At this juncture, what is impugned is only a sanction granted under Section 17A of the PC Act, 1988 to facilitate such

investigation. This Court does not find any compelling reason to interdict the process at its threshold.

¶17Mere initiation of investigation, by itself, does not visit the petitioner with any civil or penal consequences so as to warrant interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner would have ample opportunity to place her defence, tender her explanation, and have her statement recorded before the Investigating Officer. The question as to whether the names of the five persons were indeed interpolated in the records, and whether the signatures attributed to the petitioner are forged, are all matters which are to be established on the basis of evidence during investigation. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant any indulgence at this nascent stage.

¶18This Court cannot, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, undertake a roving enquiry into disputed questions of fact, particularly when the petitioner herself

seeks to rely on factual assertions which require evidentiary adjudication.

¶19This Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned sanction order does not suffer from lack of jurisdiction. The observations contained therein, though strongly worded, are only for the limited purpose of granting sanction under Section 17A of the PC Act. Interference at this stage would amount to pre-empting a statutory investigation. Accordingly, point Nos. (i) and (ii) are answered in the negative.

¶20For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER

(i) The writ petition is dismissed;

(ii) It is clarified that the observations made in the impugned sanction order shall be construed as confined only to the grant of permission under

Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for the purpose of investigation and shall not influence the investigating agency or any subsequent proceedings on merits;

(iii) All contentions of the petitioner on facts and law are left open to be urged before the appropriate forum at the appropriate stage;

(iv) No costs. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10