JUDGMENT
Usha Mehra, J.
1. The case of the petitioner was that he furnished information to respondent about the gross illegalities committed by the partners of Mahavir Metals, Mahavir Abhushan Bhandar and M. C. Auto (P.) Ltd. The respondents in pursuance of information furnished by the petitioner, fixed the date for conducting the search at the premises of the Jain Brothers. But instead of conducting the said search, the respondent postponed it in connivance with the partners of the said business firms. He had mentioned the name of the Jains, partners of those firms, responsible for evading tax and also indicated the modus operandi adopted by them to do smuggling of gold. Jain Bros. used to bring gold and silver and after converting it into coins and other items, would sell the same through their above two businesses. Besides the said illegal activities they had been committing illegal activities in their business of M. C. Auto (P.) Ltd., i.e., in the garb of repairing vehicles they used to replace genuine parts of the Government vehicles. They used to raise false bills on the Government in connivance with the drivers of the Government vehicles to whom they paid commission, therefore, no complaint was lodged against them. On such incident was when an exorbitant bill was raised for the repair of a car of the Tis Hazari Courts. The matter was investigated by the Administrative Sub-Judge, Delhi. The other case relates to the Food and Civil Supplies Department. They are opening illegal accounts in the names of their employees under threat in order to save tax on account of their illegal activities involving sale and purchase of plots, etc. When the petitioner detected these illegal activities of Jain Bros. he informed various authorities about the same and also referred the matter to the CBI and the Chief Vigilance Officer, Income-tax Department, for action.
2. It is further his case that on his complaint the case was entrusted to Shir Abrar Ahmed, Deputy Director (Investigation), for further investigation. The petitioner’s statement was recorded by the said officer and he was directed to meet Shri B. P. Mishra, Assistant Director (Investigation) in future. On transfer of the said Shri Abrar Ahmed, the matter was dealt with by Shri Bandhopadhyaya, Deputy Director (Vigilance). He did not initiate any action. However, on the insistence of the petitioner Shri B. P. Mishra inspected the area surrounding the premises of Jain Brothers. The petitioner was assured that search would be conducted between October 12-16, 1992. Instead it was adjourned to October 19/23, 1992. Still no search was conducted. Subsequently, the petitioner was informed that the search would be conducted after obtaining permission from higher ups. Further irregularities came to the notice of the petitioner, he accordingly intimated the same to Shri S. N. Shinde, Director-General of Income-tax thereby pointing out what illegalities were committed by the Jain Brothers and for taking prompt action. But till date no action had been taken. As a result of these illegal activities of the Jain Brothers, the Department has been deprived of huge tax. The petitioner suffered because being an erstwhile employee of Jain Brothers he apprehends danger to his life for having informed against them.
3. The respondent in turn took the stand that all possible action in the circumstances were taken by the Department. The petitioner who was an employee of M. C. Auto Pvt. Ltd., as accountant, after leaving the job complained about the activities of Jain Brothers. In the absence of police protection, the search had to be postponed. The petitioner, on account of postponement of the search, lodged a complaint against the officials of the respondent, namely, Shri B. P. Mishra, Shri J. R. Kalra, Shri P. S. Tomar who according to the petitioner were instrumental in canceling the search. His complaint was investigated, but nothing substantial was fond against them. In fact the decision to conduct the search was taken by the Director (Investigation). Shri P. S. Tomar being one of the 25 Assistant Directors was only an insignificant officer who could not take a decision for conducting or canceling the raid. Therefore, the allegations against him are baseless. The search had to be postponed because of non-availability of the police protection. Moreover, the petitioner himself had been announcing to all any sundry that search of Jain Brothers family was going to take place. The petitioner forwarded his complaint dated February 24, 1993, to a number of departments. No secrecy of search or about the date of search was maintained by the petitioner, so much so Mr. Anand Jain whose premises was to be searched also knew about the complaint and the proposed search. It was in this background that the search had to be postponed. Mr. Anand Jain intimated that the petitioner was blackmailing him to get his business premises searched. However, pursuant to the survey conducted on the business of Jain Brothers on July 20, 1994, Rs. 2,00,000 were surrendered by Mahavir Abhushan Bhandar on account of under valuation of stock of silver and silver ornaments. Similarly, on the survey being conducted of M. C. Auto (P.) Ltd. Rs. 2,00,000 was found in a car parked in the premises which was surrendered by Shri Anand Jain as speculation profit. Accordingly, on the basis of these two amounts surrendered during the survey, a reward of Rs. 8,000 has been give to the petitioner of July 3, 1995.
4. After hearing the petitioner and counsel for the Income-tax Department, I am of the view that the allegations levelled against the officials of the Department have not been substantiated, rather every allegation has been explained by the respondent in its counter-affidavit. Neither Mr. P. S. Tomar nor Mr. B. P. Mishra or for that matter Mr. J. R. Kajla had anything to do with the stoppage of the search. As explained by the respondent, the search had to be abandoned on the date fixed because of the disclosure made by petitioner himself about the survey to be conducted to a number of departments of the Government of India. He even went to the extent of informing Mr. Anand Jain, whose premises were to be searched that the Department was going to survey his premises. Therefore, Mr. Rajendra, counsel for the respondent rightly contends that such a search for which the petitioner had given lot of publicity would have lost its significance particularly when the Department knew that the intimation about the same had already been conveyed by the petitioner to the party concerned. After the informer had leaked the information, to my mind, the purpose of the search lost its significance. The Department, therefore, was justified in abandoning the same. Moreover, after the survey and search when Mr. Jain Brothers surrendered the amount of Rs. 4 lakhs, the petitioner had already been paid the reward amount of Rs. 8,000 on July 3, 1995. Mr. Rajendra also stated that another sum of Rs. 2,000 has been paid to the petitioner on account. Unless and until assessments are completed and the exact position emerges the exact amount cannot be paid to the petitioner. But as an interim measure a sum of Rs. 2,000 has been paid, the balance would be paid, if due, after completion of the assessment. To my mind, the respondent having complied with the provision of law by taking appropriate action and also conducting the search and survey at the appropriate time, there survives nothing in this petition except that if after completion of assessment, any amount as reward is found due to the petitioner the same be paid immediately. In the written submissions the petitioner himself has admitted that the Supreme Court had referred his case to the Legal Aid Cell of the Supreme Court and a senior advocate was provided to him to prosecute his matter. The Legal Aid Cell has forwarded his complaint to the CBI. The matter is now pending with the CBI. In view of this admission of the petitioner, no further order is required to be passed. In view of my above observation, the petition stands disposed of.
