Case at a glance: The Allahabad High Court has dismissed an NHAI officer's challenge to his summoning in a CBI bribery case, rejecting the argument that sanction for prosecution had earlier been refused. It held that the February 2025 documents were internal notings, not orders refusing sanction, and that under the DoPT O.M. an authority disagreeing with CVC advice must refer the matter to DoPT.
A petrol-pump NOC applicant alleged that a co-accused NHAI official demanded Rs 1.5 lakh. A CBI FIR was registered on 3 July 2024 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and a trap the same day recovered Rs 50,000. A controlled call from the co-accused to the petitioner, a Deputy Manager (Technical), was relied on against him.
Internal NHAI communications in February 2025 allegedly declined sanction. The CVC advised sanction in September 2025, which was granted in October 2025, and the Special Judge (PC Act), CBI, Lucknow took cognizance and summoned him. He argued that sanction had been refused twice and could not be reviewed without fresh material.
The Key Question Before the Court
Was sanction for prosecution invalid because NHAI had earlier refused it, and could the summoning order be quashed?
Notings, CVC Advice and Failure of Justice
The Court held that the February 2025 documents were internal notings, not orders refusing sanction (Sethi Auto, Vivek Batra), so there was no refusal to review and the bar against review without fresh material did not apply. Under the DoPT O.M. of 1 March 2019, an authority disagreeing with CVC advice must refer the matter to DoPT; it cannot simply decline. CVC advice is advisory but weighty (Vijay Rajmohan).
Any defect in sanction must be shown to have caused a failure of justice, which is a matter for trial (Parkash Singh Badal, Rajmangal Ram). The prima facie material supported cognizance, and revocation of suspension or a departmental outcome did not vitiate the prosecution (Ajay Kumar Tyagi).
What the Court Actually Held
- The petition was dismissed as lacking merit.
- Internal notings declining sanction are not orders refusing sanction.
- Disagreement with CVC advice must be referred to DoPT.
- The Court's observations will not affect the trial on merits.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It clarifies the status of internal notings in sanction decisions.
- It reinforces the DoPT procedure where CVC advises prosecution.
- It confirms that sanction defects are generally tested at trial.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Accused Officers
- Distinguish formal orders from internal notings when alleging prior refusal.
- Raise sanction defects with a case of failure of justice.
For Departments
- Follow the DoPT O.M. when disagreeing with CVC advice.
Key Takeaways
- Notings are not refusal of sanction.
- CVC advice carries weight.
- Disagreement goes to DoPT.
- Sanction defects are for trial.
Frequently Asked Questions
The Court held the February 2025 documents were internal notings, not orders refusing sanction.
Under the DoPT O.M. of 1 March 2019, it must refer the matter to DoPT.
No. The Court held it does not vitiate the prosecution.
Conclusion
The judgment brings clarity to how sanction decisions are recorded and reviewed in central public bodies.
Practical takeaway: A claim of prior refusal of sanction must rest on a formal order, not file notings.