(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the communication of the second respondent dated 12.05.2023 in No.C7/RC 12(A)/2013/CBI/ACB/Chennai/1723/1795 and quash the same and issue a direction to the respondent to process the petitioner’s reward as per the representation dated 22.03.2023.)

1. This writ petition (crl.) impugns the communication dated 12.05.2023 addressed by the second respondent to the petitioner, whereby and whereunder, it is stated that the petitioner’s claim for reward from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is not valid. Besides the said certiorari relief, the petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to the respondents to process his reward as per his representation dated 22.03.2023.

2. The petitioner’s case, in a nutshell, could be projected thus:

                     2.1. The petitioner, while claiming to be an activitist under the Right to Information Act and a whistleblower engaged in unearthing high profile smuggling cases, submits that his father is a renowned dealer in imported luxury cars.

                     2.2. In the year 2008, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) initiated a large scale investigation against one Alex C. Joseph qua illegal import of luxury cars from countries like South Africa, Canada, etc., about whom the petitioner and his father had given information to the DRI vide three recording slips, besides identifying the stockyard where the smuggled cars were stored by the said Alex C. Joseph.

                     2.3. In recognition of the contribution made by the petitioner and his father in this regard, his father was given an amount of Rs.27,000/- in the year 2010 as “token reward” by the CBI, though he was entitled to have got a sum of Rs.1,55,000/-.

                     2.4. Further, since there was no progress in the investigation conducted by the respondents, the petitioner addressed a complaint dated 27.01.2012 to the A.D.S.P., CBI, inter alia explaining the corruption and involvement of the second respondent in covering up the investigation owing to the involvement of several bigwigs in the offence.

                     2.5. Thanks to the tip off given by the petitioner, though the first respondent took cognizance of the case and seized 50 cars between 2012 and 2014 for customs duty evasion of Rs.48.50 crores, he and his father were not given the balance reward amount, viz., 1,28,000/- [Rs.1,55,000 (less) Rs.27,000/-], notwithstanding several attempts made by the petitioner in regard thereto.

                     2.6. Aggrieved, the petitioner’s father addressed a letter to the Additional Director General of the DRI seeking payment of balance reward amount, which was replied vide letter dated 23.03.2015 stating that original investigation files pertaining to the information given by the petitioner’s father had been seized by the Anti Corruption Bureau of the CBI, owing to which, further information could not be given.

                     2.7. Following that, the petitioner addressed a letter to the first respondent on 22.03.2023 seeking balance reward amount to him and his father, in response to which, the second respondent addressed a letter dated 12.05.2023 to the petitioner stating that his claim for reward from the CBI is invalid, inasmuch, as no records were found to show that the CBI had registered any case in pursuance of the tip off given by him.

                     2.8. The legality and validity of the aforesaid letter dated 12.05.2023 of the second respondent is called into question in this writ petition, besides seeking a direction to the respondents to process the petitioner’s reward as per his representation dated 22.03.2023, as stated in the opening paragraph.

3. Though the petitioner put forth myriad arguments, the sum and substance of the same is that but for the intelligence provided by him and his father on the modus operandi adopted by the said Alex C. Joseph in the illegal import of luxury cars, the CBI would not have seized 50 cars for customs duty evasion of Rs.48.50 crores and hence, he and his father are entitled to get the balance reward of Rs.1,28,000/- from the respondents.

4. Per contra, Mr. N. Baaskaran, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases, inter alia, advanced the following submissions:

                     i. The petitioner and his father have no locus standi to question the progress of investigation conducted by the CBI as has been held by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.30202 of 2024 vide order dated 06.02.2025 and in view of the said order, this writ petition should not be entertained and if so advised, he can only file a writ appeal thereagainst; and

                     ii. There is no scheme in vogue as per which the CBI is under an obligation to grant reward to informers and when such being the case, the petitioner’s claim has been rightly rejected by the second respondent by the order impugned;

5. The issue that arises for determination of this Court lies in a very narrow compass and that issue is as to whether the petitioner and his father are entitled to the balance reward of Rs.1,28,000/-, as claimed by the petitioner.

6. Having carefully considered the submissions articulated on either side and scanned through the materials available on record, this Court comes to the irresistable conclusion that the issue for consideration set out above has to be answered only in the negative owing to the reasons assigned infra.

                     i. The first and foremost reason is that though it has been the stand of the petitioner in the earlier writ petition being W.P.No.30202 of 2024 as well in the instant writ petition throughout that he was paid a token reward of Rs.27,000/- in the year 2010, he has not placed before this Court, even a shred of material to substantiate the said stand. In fact, though he had categorically averred at paragraph 4 of the affidavit that he and his father provided information vide recording slips dated 06.03.2008, 12.03.2008, 19.03.2008, etc., for the reasons best known, the petitioner has not produced even a single slip to substantiate the said averment. Further, it is beyond the ken of this Court as to on what basis he claims that a balance reward of Rs.1,28,000/- is due to him. He has not produced before this Court any Guidelines or Rules on the strength of which he predicates this claim. No doubt, he has pressed into service a Circular dated 31.07.2015 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, qua grant of reward to informers and Government servants which is captioned as “Guidelines for grant of reward to informers and Government Sevants, 2015”. But, to be noted, in this writ petition, as noticed above, and at the cost of repetition, the petitioner challenges the communication issued by the second respondent (an officer of the CBI) in and by which his claim for reward is negatived and also seeks a mandamus to the respondents who are officials of the CBI. By relying on the guidelines issued by the DRI, the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that he must be given the balance reward by the CBI when concededly the DRI and the CBI are two different entities and the CBI does not have any scheme for grant of reward to informers. In view of these reasons, the reliance placed by the petitioner on the Circular dated 31.07.2025 can hardly be of any assistance to his case. Further, when according to the petitioner, he had got a reward of Rs.27,000/- from the DRI, it is incomprehendible to this Court as to how the petitioner seeks the balance reward from the CBI, when the CBI, as already stated, does not have any guidelines qua grant of reward to informers. This approach by the petitioner only impels and compels this Court to observe that the petitioner is barking up the wrong tree and predicates his claim on a non-existent set of guidelines.

                     ii. Likewise, the petitioner has garnered support from the communication dated 27.10.2021 addressed by the DIG/Head of Branch, CBI, ACB, Mumbai (Inquiring Authority), wherein, considering the petitioner’s evidence to be material, the petitioner was requested to appear for enquiry in respect of an RDA proceedings against two DRI officials, viz. (1) L.S.Padmakumar, S.P. (Retd.), CBI, STB, New Delhi and (2) T.P.Anandakrishnan, Dy. S.P., CBI, SCB, Thiruvananthapuram, for their evasion of professional duty in the imported cars case. This communication also cannot come to the aid of the petitioner for the same reason assigned in the preceding paragraph, i.e., the CBI does not have guidelines like the DRI for grant of reward.

                     iii. Secondly, the petitioner, at paragraph 14 of his affidavit, has averred that his father addressed a letter in 2014 to one M.M. Parthiban, then ADG, DRI, seeking balance reward amount and that the said official replied saying that he could not provide further information, inasmuch as, the ACB, CBI, Chennai, had seized the original investigation files. This averment is factually incorrect and this is manifest from the letter enclosed at page no.33 of the typed set of papers by the petitioner, as per which, it was not issued by M.M. Parthiban, as averred by the petitioner, but, by one K. Panneerselvam, Senior Intelligence Officer.

                     iv. Thirdly, it is very important to notice that as per the averments in the petitioner’s affidavit, after the petitioner’s father’s letter dated 08.12.2014 which was replied by K. Panneerselvam, Senior Intelligence Officer on 23.03.2015, the petitioner had remained silent and stoic for eight long years and suddenly woke up from slumber like Rip Van Winkle and addressed a letter dated 22.03.2023 to the first respondent which was turned down by the second respondent vide the impugned order with the reasoning already alluded to above. This Court is at a loss to understand as to why the petitioner did not pursue the matter on the heels of the letter dated 23.03.2015 and instead, waited for quite a long number of years to address the letter dated 22.03.2023.

                     v. Last but not the least, in the earlier writ petition being W.P.No.30202 of 2024, the prayer is to take action on the petitioner’s representation dated 31.05.2023. A perusal of the said representation dated 31.05.2023 would reveal that the petitioner’s grievance therein is qua the balance reward. It is noteworthy that the petitioner’s earlier representation dated 22.03.2023 also was with identical grievance. When the earlier writ petition wherein the subject matter was the representation dated 31.05.2023, was dismissed by this Court, the petitioner cannot file the present writ petition challenging an order which rejected his claim made in the representation dated 22.03.2023 ventilating the identical grievance as in the representation dated 31.05.2023.

                     vi. The aforesaid point can be viewed from yet another dimension. When the petitioner’s representation dated 22.03.2023 has been rejected on 12.05.2023, the petitioner ought not to have addressed another representation i.e. representation dated 31.05.2023 on the identical lines and seek a mandamus to consider the said represenation. This was the view echoed by the Coordinate Bench in the peitioner’s earlier writ petition being W.P.No.30202 of 2024, with which this Court also concurs. Viewed from that dimension, as rightly pointed out by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, this Court is of the view that after the dismissal of W.P.No.30202 of 2024, the petitioner is not right in filing this writ petition. For this, the petitioner may take a hypertechnical stand saying that the prayer in W.P.No.30202 of 2024 is for issuance of a writ of mandamus and the prayer in the instant writ petition is for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus. This hypertechnical stand has no legs to stand for the simple reason that the issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same, i.e., claim for reward.

7. Having assigned reasons for answering the issue for determination in the negative, what follows as a natural corollary is that this writ petition has to fail as being devoid of merits.

8. Accordingly, this writ petition (crl.) stands dismissed and while holding so, this Court records its feeling of displeasure and annoyance towards the petitioner in filing one writ petition after the other seeking the same relief, thereby wasting the judicial time. However, the petitioner, being a party-inperson, this Court, taking a lenient view, refrains from imposing costs on him hoping that he will mend his ways. Connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.