Section 17A approval is inapplicable to disproportionate assets and excludes mini-trials by competent authorities.

The Petitioner filed a complaint in 2016 alleging that Mr. Prashant Waghmare, the City Engineer of Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC), amassed disproportionate assets (DA) exceeding ₹2000 Crores through illegal constructions and misuse of Transferable Development Rights (TDR)

The Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) conducted a "discreet enquiry," during which Waghmare allegedly refused to cooperate or provide financial details regarding his family’s companies and overseas trips

Consequently, the ACB sought "previous approval" from the Municipal Commissioner (Respondent No. 4) under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, 1988, to conduct an "open enquiry"

By orders dated April 16 and 25, 2019, the Municipal Commissioner rejected the request, concluding after a personal hearing and review of Waghmare’s documents that no case was made out

The Petitioner challenged these orders as an illegal attempt to shield a corrupt official

The court primarily interpreted Section 17A of the PC Act (inserted by the 2018 Amendment), which requires prior approval for inquiries into offences "relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by a public servant in discharge of official functions"

It distinguished this from Section 17, which mandates that investigations be conducted by authorized police officers

Section 19, which governs "sanction for prosecution"

The court relied on Nara Chandrababu Naidu v. State of A.P. (2024), establishing that Section 17A is a protective shield for bona fide official acts and cannot be interpreted to scuttle investigations

It further cited Dhandapani v. Vigilance Commissioner (2021) to affirm that Section 17A does not apply to disproportionate assets cases as they do not involve "official recommendations or decisions"

The court held that Section 17A was never intended to cover offences like cheating, fraud, or amassing disproportionate assets, as these acts have no nexus with the legitimate discharge of official duties

The court observed that the Municipal Commissioner (Respondent No. 4) committed a jurisdictional error by usurping the role of the investigating officer defined under Section 17

At the Section 17A stage, the Competent Authority is only required to verify if a prima facie suspicion exists; it cannot conduct a "mini-trial," grant the accused a hearing, or evaluate the merits of the defense, as such procedures are reserved for the Section 19 stage

The court criticized the Commissioner for considering documents Waghmare had withheld from the ACB and for recording a final finding of "no disproportionate assets," which essentially foreclosed a fair investigation

It held that Section 17A of the PC Act is inapplicable to disproportionate assets cases, and therefore, no "previous approval" was required for the ACB to proceed

The court declared the Commissioner’s actions as an abuse of process and an unauthorized encroachment upon the powers of the investigating agency

The Respondents (ACB) were directed to conduct an open enquiry and take appropriate legal action in accordance with the PC Act

The court stayed the implementation of its judgment for two weeks to allow Respondent No. 4 to appeal to the Supreme Court