Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Mukesh Sharma - Appellant
Versus
Ministry of Finance - Respondent
W.P.(C) 11274 of 2022
Decided On : 09-12-2022
Legal recognition of whistle-blower status requires a basis in law; commendation is possible, but no legal relief can be granted without established rights.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ petition seeking declaration as whistle-blower in banking scam - Court acknowledges the Petitioner's contributions but finds no established legal right to claim relief of being recognized as a whistle-blower - The Court may commend responsible citizenry but cannot award relief without legal basis - Remedies available under applicable statutes are left open. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
The Petitioner, seeking recognition as a whistle-blower regarding a scam involving a cooperative bank, asserts he reported the issues leading to governmental action but received no acknowledgment of his efforts. (Paras 2-4)
Findings of Court:
The Court recognized the Petitioner's role in bringing issues to light but ruled that legality was required for enforcing recognition or rewards; hence no relief was granted. (Paras 8, 9)
Issues: The main issue addressed was whether the Petitioner had a legal right to be declared a whistle-blower which requires an examination of facts beyond the scope of a writ petition. (Paras 7)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that while commendations for responsible actions are appropriate, legal entitlements must be established for claims of rewards or formal recognition as a whistle-blower. (Paras 8)
Result: Petition disposed of.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. whistleblowing and complaint submission procedures. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments for recognition as a whistle-blower. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's limitations on relief for whistle-blower claim. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. disposal of petition and open remedies. (Para 9 , 10) |
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner - Mr. Mukesh Sharma, seeking the following prayers:
"(a) issue a writ and/or order and/or direction in nature of mandamus/certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction the Respondents to declare the petitioner as the whistle blower of cooperative bank scam, money laundering and diversification of funds by housing development infrastructure limited (HDIL) through its director in connivance with the management of Punjab and Maharashtra Cooperative Bank.
(b) pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
3. The case of the Petitioner is that, on 3rd May, 2019, the Petitioner wrote to various authorities, including the Central Vigilance Commissions, Reserve Bank of India, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, as also, the Prime Minister's Office, complaining about the diversion of bank loans and other illegal activities of certain individuals being Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Mr. Gautam Mehra, Mr. Pawan Mehra and Ms. Romy Pawan Mehra. He has also stated to have written letters to various authorities including the Enforcement Directorate, etc. in respect of these individuals.
4. The grievance of the Petitioner in the present petition is that, though various actions were taken by the RBI against the said individuals, the Petitioner was not given credit for being the person who brought this to the notice of the governmental authorities. He relies upon the letter dated 7th February, 2020 issued by the RBI, wherein the action taken pursuant to the Petitioner's letters has been set out.
5. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that it was only in view of the complaint of the Petitioner that such a big scam was unearthed by the government. He submits that the letters and the complaints addressed by the Petitioner are on record, and the same clearly highlight the role that the Petitioner has played. He, thus, submits that the Petitioner ought to be rewarded for the said efforts on his part.
6. On the other hand, ld. Counsel on behalf of the Respondents, submits that only ground in the present writ petition is that the Petitioner has played a huge role in helping the governmental authorities to get hold of the offenders and that the authorities are taking credit for the work of the Petitioner. He submits that no legal right has been established by the Petitioner to seek the relief which is being sought in the present case.
7. This Court has heard the ld. Counsels and considered the matter. The prayer in the present writ petition is for declaration of the Petitioner as a whistle-blower of a particular scam relating to the Housing Development Infrastructure Limited (HDIL). The question as to whether the Petitioner's letters and complaints played a role in unearthing the said scam, or not, cannot be decided by this Court in a writ petition, as the same would require a large number of facts to be gone into.
8. Moreover, this Court is of the opinion that if the Petitioner has, as a responsible citizen, brought any issues to the knowledge of the authorities concerned, the Petitioner would have to have a basis in law to claim a reward in respect of the same. This Court, at best, can commend the Petitioner if he has played a role in unearthing the said scam, and for discharging his duty as a responsible citizen. No further reliefs can be granted by this Court beyond the said observation.
9. The remedies, if any, of the Petitioner are left open. If the Petitioner has any remedy available to him under any statute or policies of any financial o
