Brig. J.S. Sarai vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the presence of disputed questions of fact. The Court observed that the petitioner's entitlement to a reward was not consistent with the policy or guidelines as noted by the Revenue. The Court distinguished the present case from a Division Bench judgment relied upon by the petitioner, noting that in that case, the petitioner was clearly treated as a genuine informant, provided specific information leading to seizure and penalty, and was paid an advance reward. In contrast, the present case involved a dispute regarding the initial entitlement and whether the petitioner's communications constituted 'information' under the scheme. The Court found that the petitioner's communications were more akin to expressing displeasure over departmental action and that the department was already seized of the matter and taking action. Therefore, the Court declined to interfere in its writ jurisdiction, deeming it inappropriate to probe such matters which would require converting the writ jurisdiction into one for detailed inquiry and investigation, compromising confidentiality. The petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Brig. J.S. Sarai (Retd.), filed a writ petition seeking to quash a communication dated 08.11.2019 from the respondent, Principal Commissioner, CGST, Ludhiana. This communication rejected the petitioner's claim for a reward under the Scheme of Grant of Rewards to Informers and Government Servants, 2015. The petitioner contended that he had provided information leading to the recovery of substantial tax from cable operators. The respondent rejected the claim, stating that the petitioner had not provided any specific information that led to the detection or recovery of taxes. The respondent's communication detailed that the petitioner's initial communications were petitions seeking transfer of a case involving his co-brother and expressed displeasure over the slow progress of departmental action, rather than providing actionable intelligence. The respondent also noted that the information might have been shared by his co-brother in his official capacity.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's communications to the authorities constituted "information" as contemplated under the Scheme of Grant of Rewards to Informers and Government Servants, 2015, thereby entitling him to a reward? (Question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation of the Scheme and the nature of the information provided). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that he supplied information to the respondent authorities which resulted in show cause notices and recovery of substantial tax. He claimed the respondent wrongly rejected his reward claim in violation of the Awards Scheme. Respondent's contention: The respondent, through the impugned communication, argued that the petitioner did not provide any specific information that led to the detection or recovery of taxes. The communications were merely petitions or expressions of displeasure over the department's slow progress. The respondent also raised the issue that the information might have been obtained by the petitioner's co-brother in his official capacity and shared, which would disqualify the petitioner from being an "informer" under the scheme. The respondent asserted that the department was already aware of the facts and taking action prior to the petitioner's communications.