Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 8 (GUJ)

Rushikesh C. Pandya v. Union of India

2010-01-13

K.A.PUJ, RAJESH H.SHUKLA

body2010
Judgment K.A. Puj, J.—The Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a direction to the Respondents to bring all original records (i.e. show-cause notices, adjudication orders thereof etc.) of given informations including whatsoever rules of granting award / reward to this Court and true copies thereof to the petitioner. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the respondents to declare and to grant appropriate award / reward as promised, whatsoever it may be at this stage, to the petitioner within stipulated time as this Hon’ble Court may think just and proper. 2. The petition was admitted and Rule was issued by this Court on 23.8.1991. Affidavit in reply is filed on behalf of the Respondent on 8.9.2009, copy whereof is served to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 3. The short point involved in this petition is that despite certain information furnished by the petitioner, on the basis of which inquiry and investigation was made by the Respondent authorities and actions were taken under the relevant provisions of the Act and still the award / reward has not been given to the petitioner as per the policy of the Central Government. 4. Mr. P.R. Thakkar, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that several letters were written by the petitioners, and as a matter of fact on behalf of the Respondent authorities, a reply was given on 30.7.1984 that the information supplied by the petitioner was considered by the office and as regards the question of granting award / reward, as expected for supplying the information, the same would be considered as per rules at the appropriate stage. Mr. Thakkar, therefore submitted that despite this assurance no action was taken by the Respondent authorities nor any reply was given and hence the petitioner has filed the present petition. He has submitted that the Respondent authorities being State agency within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, once having assured the petitioner to consider his request for grant of award / reward, they should not have denied the benefit of reward to the petitioner. He has therefore submitted that the prayers made in the present petition are required to be granted. 5. Mr. Thakkar has also claimed the reward / award on the basis of the doctrine of promissory estoppel. He has therefore submitted that the prayers made in the present petition are required to be granted. 5. Mr. Thakkar has also claimed the reward / award on the basis of the doctrine of promissory estoppel. In support of this, he has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. R. Padmanabhan, (2003) 7 SCC 270 and in the case of Union of India vs. C. Krishna Reddy, 2004 AIR SCW 89. He has therefore submitted that the petition be allowed and appropriate directions be issued to the Respondent authorities to grant reward to the petitioner. 6. We have considered the submissions made by Mr. Thakkar and we have also gone through the averments made in the petition as well as the documents attached therewith. 7. From the pleadings made in the petition and on a plain reading of the documents, which are placed along with the petition, we are of the view that the informations supplied by the petitioner are too vague and general. We are of the view that there was no promise ever given by the Respondent authorities. The letter which is referred to, only indicates that the claim of the petitioner would be considered in accordance with law. In the affidavit in reply, it is specifically stated that there has not been a single case till date where the office of the Respondent has granted any reward / award to any informer, and therefore, it is clear that there is no such policy to grant award or reward. Even if there is such policy, it cannot be said that the information supplied by the petitioner is relied upon by the Respondent authorities. The Petitioner simply relied on the news item which is published in Vypar. In this news item, the action was taken against more than 150 parties which include the names of 3 to 4 parties about which the information was given by the petitioner. This fact by itself does not indicate that the action taken by the Respondent authorities are based on the information supplied by the petitioner. The petitioner has failed to discharge the initial burden cast upon him to provide exact terms and details. He failed to pinpoint any specific rule in this regard. Even the judgments relied upon by Mr. Thakkar do not render any assistance. The petitioner has failed to discharge the initial burden cast upon him to provide exact terms and details. He failed to pinpoint any specific rule in this regard. Even the judgments relied upon by Mr. Thakkar do not render any assistance. On the contrary the observations made therein are contrary to the claim made by the petitioner. In the case of Union of India & Others vs. C. Krishna Reddy (Supra), the Court has observed that; “The High Court in writ jurisdiction cannot examine or weigh the various factors which have to be taken into consideration while deciding a claim regarding grant of reward. These are matters exclusively within the domain of the authorities of the department as they alone can weigh and examine the usefulness or otherwise of the information given by the informer. In the writ petition filed by the respondent-claimant, no details had been given on the relevant issues. The reward cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Thus no Writ of Mandamus can be issued by the High Court, commanding the Govt. to give a particular amount by ways of reward.” 8. The Apex Court has also referred to its earlier decision in the case of Union of India vs. R. Padmanabhan, (2003) 7 JT (SC) 196. It also deals with the same question and it was held therein that; “Being ex gratia no right accrues to any sum as such till it is determined and awarded and, in such cases, normally it should not only be in terms of the guidelines and policy, in force, as on the date of consideration and actual grant but has to be necessarily with reference to any indications contained in this regard in the scheme itself. It was also held that the question of any vested rights accrued being protected from any subsequent amendments would not arise in such a case and therefore, the guidelines, as are in force on the date of consideration, will really be applicable and relevant.” 9. In light of the aforesaid decisions, we are of the view that the petitioner has not pointed out any guidelines, policy, circular or notification in this regard. On the contrary the petitioner has thrown the burden on this Court by making the prayer for a direction to the Respondent authorities. This is contrary to the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision. 10. On the contrary the petitioner has thrown the burden on this Court by making the prayer for a direction to the Respondent authorities. This is contrary to the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision. 10. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any substance and merit in the present petition. The petition therefore fails. Rule discharged without any order as to costs. P P P P P