Digitally signed by LAXMIKANT LAXMIKANT GOPAL CHANDAN Date:

2025.06.24

15:12:59 +0530 lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2283 OF 2013 Darshan Singh Parmar, Aged about 64 years, Indian Inhabitant, Residing at Old Barrack T50, Room No.216, Chembur Camp, Mumbai- 400076 … Petitioner Versus

1. The Union of India Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate, Mumbai - 400032

2. The State of Maharashtra through Government Pleader, High Court (O.S.) Mumbai.

3. The Commissioner of Sales Tax 504, Vikrikar Bhavan, Mazgaon, Mumbai 400010

4. The Director of Central Bureau of Investigation Department, Economic Offences Wing, Kitab Mahal, 3^rd floor, D.N. Road, Mumbai-400001

5. The Director of Income Tax (Vigilance)

Kitab Mahal, D.N. Road, Mumbai

400001. … Respondents WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.13522 OF 2024 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2283 OF 2013 Darshan Singh Parmar, Applicant … (Org.Petitioner)

In the matter between:

Darshan Singh Parmar, … Petitioner Versus The Union of India & ors. … Respondents.

______________________________________________________ Mr D. S. Sakhalkar with Mr. Himanshu Thakur i/b Suresh Patil, for Petitioner.

Ms Neeta V. Masurkar, for Respondent Nos. 1 and 4.

Mr Himanshu Takke, AGP, for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. ______________________________________________________

CORAM : M.S. Sonak &

Jitendra Jain, JJ.

RESERVED ON : 10 June 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 24 June 2025 JUDGMENT: (Per M. S. Sonak, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The rule was issued in this Petition on 13 October 2015. Accordingly, with the consent of and at the request of learned counsel for the parties, this Petition was heard for final disposal.

3. The Petitioner, who was 64 years old at the time of institution of this Petition in 2013, seeks an appropriate writ to direct the Respondents to reward the Petitioner for valuable information provided by the Petitioner to the State Government and its Sales Tax Department from 1992 onwards, based upon which, the sale tax recoveries were made from the tax evaders. This reward is claimed by relying upon the circular/resolution dated 01 January 1976 (Exhibit A at pages 14 to 19 of the paper book).

4. The record bears out that the Petitioner, since 1992, has been submitting information to the Sales Tax Department regarding tax evasion and evaders. In 1996 (see letter dated August 15, 1996), the Petitioner revealed the connection between Public Sector Oil Companies and certain Fisherman Co-operative Societies, exposing the modus operandi employed, which resulted in widespread tax evasion. Despite the Petitioner providing information that at least prima facie indicated tax evasion or even tax fraud, no action was taken. As a result, the Petitioner filed Public Interest Litigation No.139 of 2006, requesting action on his complaints.

5. By order dated 21 November 2007, this PIL was disposed of after taking cognizance of the Affidavit filed by the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. EOW, Mumbai and the Affidavit on behalf of the Finance Department, Government of Maharashtra. These Affidavits provided details of the action taken, including arrest and filing of a charge sheet. This order granted liberty to the Petitioner to pursue his remedy of seeking rewards because it was the Petitioner’s case that the tax evaders were booked and the taxes may have been recovered from them based upon the Petitioner’s complaints.

6. The Petitioner, therefore, pursued the matter with the Respondents. However, this pursuit did not meet with much success, mainly because the Respondents were not disclosing full details about the action initiated and the recoveries made based on the Petitioner’s complaints. The Petitioner was always given vague and nonspecific replies. The Petitioner was informed that the issue of recoveries is the subject matter of appeals, and the Department was pursuing the matter. The Petitioner was given the impression that once the appeals are disposed of, necessary recoveries would be