Rakesh Kumar Sharma v. The Director General Of Income Tax And Others

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh C.W.P. No. 357 of 2000 Date of Decision: September 23, 2009 Rakesh Kumar Sharma …Petitioner Versus The Director General of Income Tax and others …Respondents CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:None for the petitioner. Mr. Sukant Gupta, Advocate,for the respondents. 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported inthe Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays forcommanding the respondents to make the payment of reward in lieu ofproviding information of unaccounted money to the Income-tax Department ontwo occasions. The petitioner has claimed that he gave the information of incomeof M/s Hindustan Agro Tech., HSIDC, Sector 3/106, Karnal in the month ofSeptember 1996 on the basis of which a search was conducted on 14.10.1996and 17.10.1996 at the said premises, which resulted in discovery ofunaccounted amount of Rs. One Crore. He has further claimed that in April1998 he again gave information in respect of M/s Fair Deal House, Minar Road, Opposite Ashoka Cinema, Karnal and a raid was conducted on 22.5.1998.More than Rs. 1.6 crores were recovered this time. According to the petitioneron both the occasion assurances were given by the department that rewardwould be given to him as per the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (forbrevity, ‘the Act’). Further case of the petitioner is that despite repeatedrepresentations and visits no reward has been given to him. Even legal noticeswere sent on 24.11.1998 and 8.3.1999 (P-2 & P-3) but of no avail. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2it has been specifically denied that no information as alleged by the petitionerwas ever furnished by him. In respect of both the instances quoted by thepetitioner, it has been stated that some other informant had provided theinformation whose particulars have not been disclosed for the purpose ofsecrecy. It has not been disputed that there are guidelines issued by the CentralBoard of Direct Taxes (CBDT) for grant of rewards to informants. It has beenpointed out that in accordance with the said guidelines the reward is purely ex-gratia payment, which may be awarded on the absolute discretion of theauthority and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. A separate but identicalwritten statement has also been filed on behalf of respondent No. 3. No replication to the aforementioned written statements has beenfiled on behalf of the petitioner. Even no one has put in appearance in supportof the petition. Having heard learned counsel for the respondent and perusing thepaper book we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the instantpetition and the same deserves to be dismissed. In paras 3 and 4 the petitionerhas made a specific assertion that he had furnished information regardingexcessive and concealed income of M/s Hindustan Agro Tech HSIDC, Sector3/106, Karnal in the month of September, 1996 and got verified the site on No replication to the aforementioned written statements has beenfiled on behalf of the petitioner. Even no one has put in appearance in supportof the petition. Having heard learned counsel for the respondent and perusing thepaper book we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the instantpetition and the same deserves to be dismissed. In paras 3 and 4 the petitionerhas made a specific assertion that he had furnished information regardingexcessive and concealed income of M/s Hindustan Agro Tech HSIDC, Sector3/106, Karnal in the month of September, 1996 and got verified the site on 12.10.1996. It has also been asserted that a raid was conducted on 14.10.1996and on 17.10.1996 in the aforesaid case and the amount of Rs. One crorematured. Likewise, he has quoted another instance for furnishing information ofM/s Fair Deal House, Minar Road, Opposite Ashoka Cinema, Karnal in themonth of April, 1998. In that case raid was conducted and more than Rs.1.6crores had matured. However, in paras 2,3 and 4 of the written statement,respondent has controverted the assertion of the petitioner by stating that he didnot give information to the respondents as per record of the office althoughinformation was provided in respect of M/s Hindustan Agro Tech by some otherinformer. The particulars of the aforesaid informant have not been disclosed onaccount of maintaining secrecy. Likewise, in para 3, the assertion of thepetitioner has been controverted that he did not give any information in respectof M/s Hindustan Agro Tech. Similar averments have been made in para 4 ofthe written statement in respect of M/s Deal House, Karnal by alleging that it isnot borne out from the record of the respondents. Once the aforesaid factualposition itself is clear, the claim of the petitioner cannot be adjudicatedespecially when after the filing of the written statement by the respondents nocounter affidavit has been filed by the petitioner controverting the assertionmade by the respondents and by bringing on record the documents in support ofthe averments made in paras 3 and 4 of the petition. This would have beensufficient to dismiss the petition. The petitioner has failed to place on recordany concrete evidence in support of his claim. Moreover, in the writtenstatement the respondents have specifically denied the assertion made by thepetitioner to which no replication has been filed. However we proceed to examine the policy instructions regardingpayment of reward issued on 30.03.1985, which were revised on 30.03.1989.The petitioner has claimed that he had supplied the information in the month of September 1996 and then in April 1998, therefore, the revised instructionswould govern the issue. In the case ofUnion of Indiav. C. Krishna Reddy,(2003) 12 SCC 627, Hon’ble the Supreme Court has held that many factorshave to be taken into account by the competent authority before announcing thereward. It further held that the factors like specificity and accuracy of theinformation, the risk and trouble undertaken, the extent or the nature of helprendered by the informer, whether information gives clues of the personinvolved in smuggling or their associates, the difficulty in securing theinformation, the risk involved for the Government servants in working out thecase and whether apart from seizure of the contraband goods, theowners/organisers/financers/racketeers have been apprehended. The SupremeCourt went on to observe in para 12 as under:- “The High Court in writ jurisdiction cannot examine or weighthe various factors which have to be taken into consideration whiledeciding a claim regarding grant of reward. These are mattersexclusively within the domain of the authorities of the Departmentas they alone can weigh and examine the usefulness or otherwise ofthe information given by the informer. In the writ petition filed bythe respondent, no details had been given on the relevant issues. Ifthe grant of reward cannot be claimed as a mater of right it is notunderstandable as to how a writ of mandamus can be issuedcommanding the Government to give a particular amount by wayof reward. ...............” Hon'ble the Supreme Court further held that a writ of mandamuscan only be granted in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon theofficer concerned and failure on the part of that officer to discharge thestatutory obligation. Therefore, it is required to be shown that a statute imposes a legal duty and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforceits performance. The Supreme Court relied upon its earlier judgments renderedin the cases of Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Co-operative Society Ltd. v.Sipahi Singh, AIR 1977 SC 2149; Lekhraj Satram Dass Lalvanai v. DeputyCustodian-cum-Managing Officer, AIR 1966 SC 334 and Dr. Umakant Saran v.State of Bihar, AIR 1973 SC 964. The principles laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the caseof C. Krishna Reddy (supra) when applied to the facts of the present case wouldshow that no direction could be issued to the respondents for rewarding anyamount to the petitioner because the respondents have in categorical termsdenied that no information was supplied by the petitioner. Therefore, there isno merit in the instant petition. Dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR)JUDGE September 23, 2009Pkapoor (JASWANT SINGH) JUDGE