[ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad ]

Allahabad HC Quashes Special Court's Direction to Secure Prosecution Sanction Against Former DM in Saharanpur Sand Mining Case

The Allahabad High Court set aside a CBI Special Court order directing the CBI to secure prosecution sanction against a former District Magistrate accused of illegally renewing sand mining leases, finding no incriminating material against him in the investigation record.

Manaswi Singh — High Court of Judicature at Allahabad — 29 July 2026 — 8 min read

Justice Raj Beer Singh, sitting singly at the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, allowed a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application filed by Pawan Kumar, the former District Magistrate of Saharanpur, and quashed the order dated 22 March 2024 passed by the Special Judge (Anti-Corruption), CBI Court No. 2, Ghaziabad. That order had directed the CBI to ensure prosecution sanction against Pawan Kumar was obtained and filed before the court in Criminal Misc. Case No. 01 of 2023, arising out of RC-6(A)/2019/CBI/SC-III/New Delhi. The High Court held that the direction effectively compelled the sanctioning authority to act, contrary to settled law, and independently found no prima facie material in the investigation record to proceed against the applicant.

The CBI Investigation and the Closure Report

The case has its roots in a CBI inquiry ordered pursuant to directions of the Allahabad High Court in PIL No. 22482/2016 (Amar Singh v. State of UP & others), PIL No. 29115/2016 (Sonu Kumar v. State of UP & others), and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 818/2015 (Ranvir Singh v. Union of India). The inquiry focused on sand mining leases in Saharanpur district and whether their renewal had bypassed the e-tendering procedure introduced by the Government of Uttar Pradesh vide order dated 31.05.2012.

The factual backdrop, as recorded in the CBI complaint dated 30.09.2019 by Deputy SP K.P. Sharma, runs through several years of administrative action. In 2006, 40 out of 42 sand mining leases were executed for three years. Fifteen of those were challenged in court; 13 were re-granted by the then DM on 23.05.2008. A first renewal was approved by the then Mining Minister Indrajeet Saroj on 11.05.2011 and communicated to the DM on 13.05.2011. The first renewal deeds were executed between August and November 2012 by the then DM Ajay Kumar Singh.

By order dated 31.05.2012, the State Government cancelled all prior renewal orders under Chapter II of the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 (UPMMCR, 1963) and introduced e-tendering under Chapter IV. That order was upheld by the Allahabad High Court on 29.01.2013 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 37725/2012 (Nar Narain Mishra & others v. State of U.P. & others). The State Government later withdrew the e-tendering order on 22.10.2014, restoring the Chapter II renewal mechanism.

Pawan Kumar's role relates solely to the second renewal of leases, during his posting as DM Saharanpur from 21.07.2015 to 08.08.2016. By the 38th amendment dated 14.07.2015 to the UPMMCR, 1963, the State Government was empowered under Rule 8 to allow second renewal of river-bed sand mining leases where minor minerals are found in a mixed state. On 05.08.2015, the Joint Secretary, Geology and Mining Department, Government of UP sought factual information from Pawan Kumar regarding 35 lease-holders for second renewal. A reminder was also issued.

Acting on those directions, Pawan Kumar called for reports from the Mining Officer, Mining Clerk, SDM Behat, Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Saharanpur. He consolidated those reports without alteration, addition, or opinion, and forwarded them to the State Government vide letters dated 01.09.2015 and 08.10.2015 with the remark “necessary action.”

On 23.11.2015, the Joint Secretary Gendan Lal conveyed the State Government's approval for second renewal of 32 leases for three years under Rule 8 of UPMMCR, 1963. Pawan Kumar then issued office order dated 07.12.2015, reproducing the contents of that government order and directing subordinate authorities to comply. Before any lease deed could be executed or annual lease amount deposited, the Allahabad High Court passed an interim order on 15.12.2015 in PIL No. 60922/2015 (Pradeep v. State of UP) directing that no further second renewal shall be granted. No lease deed for second renewal was ever executed.

After full investigation, the CBI submitted Final Report No. 37/2022 dated 31.12.2022 — a closure report — concluding that the allegations of illegal renewal could not be substantiated, that the lease processing had proceeded in a sequential and regular manner, and that no fault, misuse, or abuse of power was attributable to Pawan Kumar.

The Special Court's Order and the Challenge Before the High Court

The Special Judge (Anti-Corruption), CBI Court No. 2, Ghaziabad did not accept the closure report. By order dated 22.03.2024, the Special Judge took cognizance against nine accused — Mahmood Ali, Dilshad, Mohammed Inam, Naseem Ahmad, Amit Jain, Vikas Agrawal, Mohammad Wajid, Mukesh Jain, and Puneet Jain — for offences under Section 120B read with Section 420 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(D) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (prior to the amendment of 27.07.2018), on the ground that sufficient material was available on record. Summons were issued to those accused persons.

As regards Pawan Kumar, the Special Judge stopped short of summoning him because prosecution sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act had not been obtained. Instead, the court directed the CBI to “ensure that sanction for prosecution of Pawan Kumar” was secured from the competent authority and filed before the court.

Pawan Kumar challenged this direction by filing Application U/S 482 No. 21070 of 2024 before the High Court, seeking to quash the impugned order dated 22.03.2024 insofar as it related to him, and also seeking to quash the entire Criminal Misc. Case proceedings qua himself. Senior Advocate G.S. Chaturvedi, assisted by Alok Ranjan Mishra, appeared for the applicant. Rahul Srivastava appeared for the CBI.

The CBI raised a preliminary objection that the Section 482 application was not maintainable because Pawan Kumar had not been summoned — the direction was only to obtain sanction. The High Court rejected this contention. The trial court had observed that a prima facie case existed against the applicant and consequently issued the direction; that observation adversely affected him. The application was held to be maintainable.

Whether a Court Can Direct the Sanctioning Authority to Grant Sanction

The first legal question was whether a trial court has power to direct the CBI to ensure that prosecution sanction against a public servant is obtained and filed before it. Justice Raj Beer Singh held it does not.

The court relied extensively on Mansukh Lal Bitthal Das Chauhan v. State of Gujarat (1997) 7 SCC 622, where the Supreme Court held that the sanctioning authority has an absolute discretion to grant or withhold sanction, and that a court cannot compel it to grant sanction, as that would amount to usurping a statutory discretion. The sanctioning authority must apply its own independent mind to the facts and evidence; its discretion must not be affected by external compulsion or constraint. If the sanctioning authority is placed under obligation or compulsion to grant sanction, the order granting it would be bad in law because the discretion not to sanction would have been taken away.

The court also drew on State of Punjab v. Mohd. Iqbal Bhatti (2009) 17 SCC 92, where the Supreme Court reiterated that “it is also well settled that the Superior Courts cannot direct the sanctioning authority either to grant sanction or not to do so.” Sanction requires serious application of mind to the material collected during investigation.

Applying these principles, the High Court found that the Special Judge's direction to the CBI to “ensure” that sanction was obtained implied a direction to the sanctioning authority itself. That was contrary to settled law and not sustainable. On this ground alone, the High Court held, the impugned order as it related to the applicant was liable to be set aside.

Whether Any Prima Facie Case Existed Against the Applicant

The court went further and examined whether the material collected during investigation disclosed any prima facie case against Pawan Kumar. The legal framework for this inquiry was drawn from settled cognizance jurisprudence: under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C., a Magistrate or Special Court may decline to accept a closure report and take cognizance on the basis of the material collected during investigation, ignoring the investigating agency's conclusions — but it can act only on the material that the investigation has actually gathered. This position was drawn from Tula Ram v. Kishore Singh AIR 1977 SC 2401, M/s India Carat Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka AIR 1989 SC 885, Minu Kumari v. State of Bihar (2006) 4 SCC 359, and Mohd. Yusuf v. State of U.P. 2007 Supreme (All) 2080.

Examining the record against that standard, the High Court found that Pawan Kumar's role had been entirely ministerial. He had only forwarded reports from subordinate officials to the State Government, in compliance of a specific direction from the Joint Secretary. His forwarding letters contained no recommendation, approval, or opinion for renewal. After the State Government independently approved second renewal of 32 leases vide order dated 23.11.2015, Pawan Kumar's office order of 07.12.2015 merely reproduced and communicated that government order to subordinate authorities — with copies to the Secretary and Director, Geology and Mining. No lease deed for second renewal was ever executed, because the Allahabad High Court's interim order dated 15.12.2015 in Pradeep v. State of UP intervened.

The Special Judge had observed in the impugned order that lease deeds had been executed in the second renewal phase. The High Court found this factually incorrect. No such execution had taken place qua the second renewal. The trial court had also not identified any specific incriminating material collected during investigation to show misconduct, abuse of power, or criminal conspiracy on Pawan Kumar's part. Having taken cognizance on the police report under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. — not under Section 190(1)(a) or after recording evidence under Sections 200/202 Cr.P.C. — the Special Judge was confined to the investigation material. That material, as the High Court found, disclosed no such case.

When the court put the pointed question to CBI's counsel whether the CBI supported the impugned order on the basis of the material and the position of law, counsel replied that all material was on record and it was for the court to decide. The CBI did not affirmatively defend the direction or assert that the investigation had yielded incriminating material against Pawan Kumar.

Outcome

Justice Raj Beer Singh allowed the application on 15 July 2026. The impugned order dated 22.03.2024 of the Special Judge (Anti-Corruption), CBI Court No. 2, Ghaziabad was set aside insofar as it related to Pawan Kumar. The proceedings of Criminal Misc. Case No. 01 of 2023 qua Pawan Kumar were quashed. The closure report filed by the CBI under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. qua the applicant was accepted.

The order does not disturb the cognizance taken against the nine other accused persons or the summons issued to them, which remain unaffected by this judgment.