dealing with the case where an approval is declined or rejected. Rather, it is a case where an authority has failed to exercise the said power in granting an authorization. Thus, we are in complete agreement with the reasoning adopted by the High Court of Calcutta in Nibaran Chandra (supra). 33.If we were to hold that even by way of a prospective application, notwithstanding the non-compliance under the CrPC, 1989, the appellant shall be permitted to prosecute the respondents, we would only be applying CrPC, 1973 retrospectively, which as discussed is not permissible. 17ON FACTS 34. On facts, it is an omission caused by the appellant which needs to be rectified. It being a curable defect, would not enure to the benefit of the respondents, particularly when they are yet to be charged in the absence of such sanction or empowerment. At this stage, it is pertinent to reiterate that the complaint was conveyed by the District Magistrate, Ramban to the Special Judge, NIA on 20.09.2019.