IMPORTANT POINT
No writ lies at the instance of any employee or the employer for claiming enforcement of any personal contractual rights inter se the employee and his employer.

JUDGMENT :

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

This writ petition is filed by one Mr. Ramesh Sanka under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ or directions directing Respondent No. 23 (CBI) to investigate the entire matter and examine all the allegations made by the writ petitioner against Respondent Nos.12 to 22 in accordance with law. The other reliefs claimed in clause (b) to (d) of the writ petition are consequential to the main relief.

2. Stated concisely, the petitioner seeks the aforementioned reliefs on following facts.

3. The petitioner is a former employee of Respondent No. 12 - a Limited Company. He worked as CEO of the said company from June 2014 till 31st December 2016.

4. In substance, the grievance of the writ petitioner is against Respondent No. 12. He has highlighted the manner and the modus operandi of Respondent No. 12 -Company, in carrying out their business and financial operations/dealings.

5. His grievance is also against the persons who are managing the affairs of Respondent No. 12 - Company and also against the Companies, individuals and the firms with whom respondent No. 12 - Company is having their business and financial dealing/operations i.e. (Respondent Nos.13 to 22, 24 and 25).

6. According to the writ petitioner, Respondent No. 12 - Company, through their Directors and employees has committed several financial irregularities in their business and financial dealing with many Companies, firms and individuals who are having their work places in India and abroad contrary to and in contravention of the provisions of Several Acts/Rules/Regulations which have gone unnoticed despite the writ petitioner had sent several complaints/representations to various statutory authorities in this behalf.

7. According to the writ petitioner, all such dealings/activities of Respondent No. 12 - Company, which he has highlighted in the writ petition has not only caused heavy loss to the public exchequer but also rendered the persons, who indulged in these activities, liable to face prosecution for commission of several cognizable offences punishable under the Acts.

8. It is essentially with these background facts; the writ petitioner has made allegations in the writ petition. He has also filed some documents to show prima facie that the prayer made by him in his writ petition deserves consideration.

9. On 11.07.2018, this Court issued notice of this writ petition confining it to the official respondents namely, respondent Nos.7 to 11. These respondents have filed the status report in a sealed cover. One official-respondent has filed the affidavit.

10. Respondent No. 12 - Company, however, in the meantime entered suo motu appearance and has filed IA No. 104447 of 2018 praying therein for dismissal of the writ petition on legal as well as on factual grounds.

11. In substance, according to respondent No. 12 -Company, the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner under Article 32 of the Constitution deserves dismissal on the grounds inter alia that it is not a bona fide petition. It is contended that this writ petition is filed by a former employee of respondent No. 12 - Company to score his personal issues and the differences qua respondent No. 12 - Company, for which some civil suits are pending between the parties in the Civil Court: that the writ petitioner has suppressed several material facts in the writ petition including the fact of pendency of the Civil Suits between them: that the writ petition is filed with an ulterior motive at the behest of others only to tarnish the image of respondent No. 12 - Company, in the market: that the writ petition does not involve any issue of infraction/violation of any fundamental rights, guaranteed to the citizens under the Constitution of India, of the petitioners. The Respondent No. 12 -Company, has denied all such allegations made against them by the writ petitioner as being baseless.

12. The writ petitioner has countered the averment