As per case facts... petitioner, an Assistant Grade-II, faced an FIR for corruption. The competent authority (President-in-council, Municipal Council) initially refused prosecution sanction. This refusal was suo moto set aside ... by the Urban Administration and Development Department, which then granted sanction under a newly amended rule. The question arose... whether the Mayor-in-Council's decision could be overturned if it suffered from bias or non-application of mind, and once the Mayor-in-Council, exercising concurrent power, refused sanction, whether the Commissioner, Urban Administration and Development Department was competent to grant sanction despite that refusal. Finally... the Court held that the President-in-Council was the competent authority under the PC Act, 1988, which is a central legislation. The State legislation (Act of 1961) and its authorities, including the Commissioner, did not have the power to revise or set aside a refusal of sanction once granted by the competent authority under the PC Act, especially retrospectively under an amended rule. The power to grant sanction under the PC Act cannot be delegated, nor can it be based on a report from another officer or authority. Therefore, the subsequent orders granting sanction were set aside.