Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (Crl.) No.142 OF 2018
Ramesh Sanka …….Petitioner (s)
VERSUS
Union of India & Ors. …….Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. 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
Signature Not Verified
Respondent Nos.12 to 22 in accordance with law. The
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2019.01.25
16:44:11 IST
Reason:
1
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
st
CEO of the said company from June 2014 till 31
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
2
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,
3
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
officialrespondent 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
4
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.
5
12. The writ petitioner has countered the averments
made in the aforesaid IA by placing reliance on the
averments made in the writ petition contending that
there has been no suppression of the material facts as
alleged by respondent No.12 – Company.
13. In the meantime several persons /organizations
have suo motu filed the applications being I.A.
Nos.3739/2018, 17628485/2018, D.No.110020/2018,
160094/2018, 171501/2018, 160094/2018,
163098/2018, D. No.17594347/2018, 144019/2018,
81895/2018, 165472/2018, 163874/2018,
157884/2018, 115735/2018 and 2974/2019, seeking
therein various kinds of reliefs for them individually and
collectively against respondent No.12 – Company, in
relation to their independent dealings which they
claimed to have had with respondent No.12 – Company
and which according to them are not till date fructified
6
and given to them by respondent No.12 – Company, as
agreed.
14. We have heard all the learned counsel for the
parties in support of their case.
15. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in
the cases reported in State of Uttaranchal vs. Balwant
Singh Chaufal & Ors. [2010(3) SCC 402], K.D. Sharma
vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors. [2008(12) SCC
481 and lastly in Arun Kumar Agrawal vs. Union of
[2014(2) SCCC 609], we are not inclined to
India & Ors.
grant any relief in this writ petition.
16. At the outset, we find that the writ petitioner has
not claimed any relief in person qua respondent No.12 –
Company, in this writ petition. Even otherwise, no writ
lies under Article 32 of the Constitution at the instance
of any employee or the employer for claiming
7
enforcement of any personal contractual rights inter se
the employee and his employer.
17. If the writ petitioner has any personal grievance
in relation to any of his contractual personal rights
flowing from any service conditions or any other
agreement with the respondent No.12 – Company, his
legal remedy lies in filing Civil Suit or take recourse to
any other civil law remedy for adjudication and
enforcement of his rights respondent No.12 –
qua
Company or anyone claiming through them as the case
may be. The writ petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution is not the remedy for agitating any such
grievance.
18. It is not in dispute that the parties are already
prosecuting their grievances against each other in Civil
Court in their respective civil suits filed by them against
each other. If that be the position, the same have to be
8
pursued by them in accordance with law against each
other.
19. So far as the raising of other grievances as set out
supra by the writ petitioner against the other
respondents are concerned, suffice it to say, this court
by order dated 11.07.2018 had issued notice to the
official respondents Nos.7 to 11. These respondents
pursuant to the notice issued have filed their respective
status report in relation to the inquiries, which is being
undertaken by them in their respective jurisdiction. We
have perused the same.
20. Needless to say depending upon the outcome of
the inquiry once it is completed by the respective official
respondents in their exclusive jurisdiction under
various Acts, the appropriate action as provided in law
will follow against all those who are found guilty.
21. Before parting, we make it clear that we have not
expressed any opinion on several factual issues alleged
9
and denied by all the parties against each other in this
writ petition and in respective IAs.
22. This order, therefore, will not influence any
authority or the Court or ongoing inquiry or proceedings
while dealing with any issue. The same has to be dealt
with uninfluenced by this order.
23. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is not
necessary to entertain several IAs bearing
Nos.3739/2018, 17628485/2018, D.No.110020/2018,
160094/2018, 171501/2018, 160094/2018,
163098/2018, D. No.17594347/2018, 144019/2018,
81895/2018, 165472/2018, 163874/2018,
157884/2018, 115735/2018 and 2974/2019, filed by
different applicants for claiming various reliefs
qua
respondent No.12 – Company, in relation to their
individual and collective grievances.
24. All such applicants would be at liberty to raise
their grievances respondent No.12 – Company
qua
10
whether individually or severally for adjudication of
their rights before an appropriate Judicial Forum in
accordance with law.
25. It is with these observations, we find no merit in
this writ petition, which fails and is accordingly
dismissed.
………………………………..J.
(ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE)
..………………………………J.
(R. SUBHASH REDDY)
New Delhi,
January 25, 2019
11