The Respondent had been working as the Assistant Engineer, Maintenance, ‘E’ Ward from 1st July 2005 until his transfer on 25th October 2012, to the Assistant Engineer post in the Market Department. He was one of the accused in the case for dereliction of duty, alongside several other municipal employees. The prosecution alleged that these officials failed to take proper maintenance measures for the Babu Genu Municipal Market, which eventually collapsed due to unauthorized structural changes by an occupant, Ashok Kumar Mehta. Despite the building’s deteriorating condition and repeated official complaints, repairs were not executed in time, culminating in the disaster.

In December 2014, the Sessions Court discharged the Respondent, stating that the material available against him did not establish a prima facie case for prosecution. The discharge was largely based on his duties, the fact that he had been transferred nearly 10 months before the collapse, and the insufficient evidence linking him to the incident. This ruling sparked a legal challenge from the prosecution, which questioned the decision and argued that the sanction for prosecution was not properly handled.

The core of the issue was the question of sanction for prosecuting a municipal officer, a crucial step under Indian law. It was revealed that the Municipal Commissioner had initially refused the sanction to prosecute the Respondent and other officers involved. Several letters between municipal authorities reflected this refusal, which ultimately became a pivotal point in the case. On 15th March 2021, the Municipal Commissioner again reiterated the refusal, thereby putting an end to the prospects of further legal action unless the sanction was granted.

The defense, led by Advocate Shri Sudeep Pasbola, highlighted the lack of sufficient grounds for the prosecution, especially since the Municipal Commissioner had refused the sanction to proceed with the case. The refusal was supported by legal precedents, such as the cases of A. Srinivasulu vs. The State and Indra Devi vs. State of Rajasthan, which emphasized the necessity of obtaining proper sanction for prosecuting public servants. These cases reiterated that without sanction, any prosecution against public officers under the IPC could be quashed.

Further, Advocate Pasbola referred to Section 86A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, which specifically governs the requirement of sanction for prosecuting municipal officers. Under this provision, the Commissioner is obligated to grant or deny sanction for prosecution, a responsibility that the municipal authorities had evidently failed to fulfill.

In light of the above facts and legal precedents, the Court dismissed the revision application, concluding that the refusal of sanction rendered the challenge to the discharge order ineffective. The refusal of sanction by the Municipal Commissioner, combined with the earlier decisions by the Sessions Court and the lack of sufficient evidence, led the Court to conclude that there was no merit in revisiting the discharge order.

This case underscores the significant role that sanction for prosecution plays in cases involving public servants and municipal officers. It highlights the legal nuances in prosecuting government employees and the challenges faced when sanction is withheld by the authorities, making it a crucial point of contention in legal proceedings.

The dismissal of the revision application in this case emphasizes the critical importance of obtaining proper sanction before initiating prosecution against public servants, especially in cases of negligence or dereliction of duty. As such, this case serves as an important reminder of the procedural safeguards in place to protect public officers, ensuring that legal action is only taken when the appropriate sanction has been granted.