Gujarat High Court
Satishbhai Govindbhai Patel ... vs Union Of India on 25 August, 2025
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7867/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7867 of 2025
==========================================================
SATISHBHAI GOVINDBHAI PATEL (DECEASED) & ANR.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR YOGESH B SHAH(11695) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1.1
KARAN G SANGHANI(7945) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
MR PRADIP D BHATE(1523) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS MAITHILI D MEHTA(3206) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 25/08/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Yogesh Shah for
the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Karan
Sanghani for respondent No.4.
2. By this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner has
prayed for following reliefs:
"(A) Petitioner submits that Petitioner had
good prima facie case, Petitioner submits
that having regarding to the facts and
circumstances of this case and in the
interest of justice, the interim relief of
some Ad hoc Amount may kindly be granted by
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7867/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
this Honourable Court. Petitioner's daughter
law is bad redden since 4 to 5 years,
requires considerable amount treatment
medical for every day, Petitioner has a
Rikshaw which is costly. of.. model and its
maintenance means other He has no are for
lively hood. Petitioner himself running the
age of 61 years. Hon. Court is earnestly
prayed for sympathy relief to the
petitioner.
(B) Your Lordship may be pleased to issue a
writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature
of certiorari of any other appropriate writ,
order or direction thereby directing the
Respondent to grant the refund due to the
Petitioner along with statutory interest."
3. The brief facts of the case are that the
petitioner late Satishbhai Govindbhai Patel
was providing secret information to the
Income-Tax Department since 1990. It is the
case of the petitioner that the Income-Tax
Department did not give rewards looking to the
disclosures made by the assessee against whom
the actions were taken based upon the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7867/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
information provided by the petitioner. The
petitioner, therefore, has approached this
Court and the authorities time and again as
under:
(1) SCA No. 18280 of 2003, which was
dismissed on 24.8.2004.
It is the case of the petitioner that
a sum of Rs.9,31,000/- was paid to the
petitioner in 2003 outside the Court by
the Department, as per the affidavit filed
before this Court.
It is also the case of the petitioner
that he had provided information in
respect of one Jayantibhai Hirpara in the
Renukabhavan Office, Bombay Market, Surat
of the Income Tax Department and the
petitioner was physically attacked on
5.7.2002 and threat was given to him to
leave city of Surat and the petitioner
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7867/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
left Surat city with entire family for
almost 2 years.
(2) The petitioner thereafter filed
Special Criminal Application No. 397 of
2003 for physical harassment as no steps
were taken by the Surat Police department
against the assessee in respect of which
the petitioner had given the information.
This Court passed an order to take
suitable steps by the trial Court.
(3) According to the petitioner, the
information with regard to Hirapara Group
was given in the year 1999 to the Income
Tax Department and action was taken in
2006 and huge unaccounted money was
recovered by the Department and a
disclosure of Rs.3,25,00,000/- was made,
however, the petitioner was not provided
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7867/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
any reward.
(4) The petitioner, therefore, filed SCA
No. 31095 of 2007 before this Court, which
was withdrawn by the advocate of the
petitioner on 3.2.2009. It appears that
the petitioner, thereafter, has made
various applications before the respondent
Department and as per the say of the
petitioner in Para-11 of the petition
about 299 applications were made before
the Income-Tax Department, High Court of
Gujarat, Police Department and even Prime-
Minister's Office. The petitioner also
received a letter dated 21.7.2008 from
Government of India and in reply, the
petitioner furnished the details of reward
received by him and also made grievance
for non-receipt of the reward for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7867/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
disclosure of Rs.3,25,00,000/- made by
Hirapara Group in March, 2006. It is the
case of the petitioner that no reward was
given to the petitioner, therefore, the
aforesaid petition was filed which was
withdrawn.
(5) It is also the case of the petitioner
that on 5.3.2010, the petitioner submitted
information about the activities of
Angadia services to various authorities of
the Department and the petitioner was also
called by Chief C.I.T, Surat, on 2.7.2010,
for providing information in person. It is
also the case of the petitioner that
thereafter action was taken on 3.7.2013 by
the Income Tax Department and huge cash,
diamonds, etc., were recovered and in
support of the same, the petitioner has
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7867/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
placed on record the Newspaper cutting in
the paper-book.
(6) As the petitioner did not receive any
reply or reward, the petitioner made an
application on 1.7.2014 but no reply is
given by the respondent. It is, therefore,
the case of the petitioner that the
petitioner has been discriminated by the
Income Tax Department for not giving the
reward on the information which has
resulted in the successful raids conducted
by the Department for evasion of the tax.
(7) Lastly, the petitioner has received a
letter dated 11.11.2022 from the office of
the Deputy Director of Income Tax
(Investigation)-2, Surat asking for the
details wherein the reward is due and not
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7867/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
yet received. The petitioner filed reply
dated 27.2.2023 before the said authority,
which reads as under:
"From:
Patel satishbhai Govindbhai
89-First Floor, Bhagu Nagar-2
Ganeshpura, Amroli Sayan Rood,
Amroli, Surat
Surat Dated 22-12-2022
To
The Assistant commissioner
of Income-Tax (Investigation)
Unit.2, Surat
Respected Sir,
Sub: My Grievance regarding non-
receipts Of reward
Ref: Your letter No.
SRT/ADIT(INU)/Unit.2/
Grievance/PSG/2022-23
With reference to the above, I most
respectfully submit the details of action taken
by the Department on the basis of my information
and I am not rewarded for the same.
Sr. Name of Party Year of Disclosure Remark
No. Action
1. Mohanbhai 1992 1,00,000 Party
Girdharbhai awarded in
Fudnawala 2003
Dahyabhai
Girdharbhai 24,000-
Fudnawala 4.11.1999
Lambe Hanuman
Rood, Matewad, 30,000-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7867/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
Surat 6.2.2003
1,20,000
20.6.2003
2. Nanubhai Mukhi 1992 1,00,000 Fully
Brothers and Rewarded in
Partners 1996
3 Vasantbhai 1993 1,50,000 Fully
Shanjibhai Rewarded in
Patel Brothers 2003
Lambe Hanuman
Rood, Surat
4. Madhubhai 1995 2,00,000 Fully
Tulsibhai Rewarded
Hirpura Laxmi
Nagar Society,
Lambe Hanuman
Rood, Surat
5 Jayantibhai 2006 3,32,00,000 Not received
Tulsibhai leakage by
Hirpura Department
Information
given in 1999
but raided on
6. Aangadia 2013 -- Not Received
Services in
Information
given on
05/05/2010,
10/05/2010
Kindly give me an opportunity to come before
Your Honour on any date suitable to Your Honour.
There is ample scope for find out evasion of
100 Cores or more which can be used for welfare
of Nation. Only lacking is action on Your
Honour's part to give me only one opportunity.
Thanking Your Honour
Your Faithfully"
4. It appears that in absence of further
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7867/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
communication, the petitioner has preferred
this petition on 20.3.2025. However, before
the petition was heard on merits, the
petitioner Satishbhai Govindbhai Patel expired
on 1.7.2025. Therefore, the legal heir of late
Satishbhai Govindbhai Patel, Dineshkumar
Satishbhai Patel was impleaded as legal heir
of the petitioner by order dated 29.7.2025.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Shah for the
petitioner submitted that in the facts of the
case, Late Satishbhai Govindbhai Patel, who
had provided information, has suffered
discrimination at the hands of the department
by not giving the reward under the Reward
Scheme. It was submitted that it is the
fundamental right of the petitioner to get the
reward for information provided, which has
resulted into successful raid and recovery of
unaccounted cash, diamonds, etc.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7867/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
6. Learned advocate Mr. Shah, therefore,
submitted that the respondent may be directed
to consider the case of the petitioner to
provide immediate adhoc amount of reward as
the economic condition of the family of late
Satishbhai Govindbhai Patel is very bad and
daughter of late Satishbhai Govindbhai Patel
requires medical treatment as stated in the
prayers made in the petition.
7. On the other hand, learned Senior Standing
Counsel Mr. Karan Sanghani appearing on
advance copy submitted that the petitioner has
not provided the information which is evident
from the reply by the petitioner in the month
of February, 2023, as it does not contain any
information so as to consider the case of the
petitioner for reward. It was further
submitted that late Satishbhai Govindbhai
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7867/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
Patel cannot be said to have any fundamental
right to get the reward under the Scheme of
Reward. It was also submitted that there is no
discrimination made by the respondent
Department as the petitioner was not able to
point out any fact which has caused
discrimination qua late Satishbhai Govindbhai
Patel. In support of his submission, reliance
was placed on the decision rendered in SCA No.
11068 of 2009 vide order dated 1.12.2010 in
case of D.D. Gandhi, Plywood Trading
Corporation v. Union of India & Others.
8. Having considered the rival submissions
made by both the learned advocates, it appears
that the petitioner has no case for which any
relief can be granted in this petition. The
petitioner has approached this Court without
highlighting the fact as to what type of
information was provided by the petitioner,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7867/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
which has resulted into into successful raid
and recovery of unaccounted cash, diamonds,
etc.
9. This Court in case of D.D. Gandhi, Plywood
Trading Corporation v. Union of India & Others
(Supra), has held as under while considering
the right of the petitioner to get reward:
"Though learned advocates have argued the
matter at length, we propose to decide this
petition on certain relevant issues such as,
(i). whether there is any failure on the
part of the officer to discharge any
statutory obligation, and (ii). Whether
grant of reward is ex-gratia, (iii). whether
there is any vested right on the informant
to claim reward, and (iv). Whether a writ
petition would lie in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
The Apex Court in the case of D.G,
REVENUE INTELLIGENCE & INVEST. Versus AMRIT
LAL MEHTA reported in 2007 (220) ELT 9 (SC)
has held as under in paragraph 7 of the
judgment:
"7. However, considering the fact that
it has been held by this Court in the
cases of Union of India & Ors. v. C.
Krishna Redy reported in [(2003) 10
SCALE 1050] as well as in Union of
India v. R. Padmanabham reported in
[(2003) 7 SCC 270] and in the Reward
Scheme that there is no vested right in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7867/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
the person to claim a reward and that
the payment can, at the highest, be an
ex gratia payment, there is absolutely
no justification to grant interest on
such ex gratia payment."
That apart, the issue involved in the
present petition is squarely covered in the
decision of the Apex Court in the case of
UNION OF INDIA v. C. KRISHNA REDDY reported
in 2004 (163) ELT 4 (SC). In paragraphs 13
and 14 of the judgment, the Apex Court held
as under:
"13. It is well settled by a catena of
decisions of this Court that a Writ of
Mandamus can be granted only in case
where there is a statutory duty imposed
upon the officer concerned and there is
failure on the part of the officer to
discharge the statutory obligation. The
chief function of the writ is to compel
performance of public duties prescribed
by statute and to keep subordinate
tribunals and officers exercising
public functions within the limit of
their jurisdiction. Therefore, in order
that a mandamus may issue to compel the
authorities to do something, it must be
shown that there is a statute which
imposed a legal duty and the aggrieved
party has a legal right under the
statute to enforce its performance.
(See Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fisherman
Co-Operative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi
Singh - AIR 977 SC 2149 para 15,
Lekhraj Satram Dass Lalvani v. Deputy
Custodian-cum-Managing Officer, AIR
1966 SC 334 and Dr. Umakant Saran v.
State of Bihar - AIR 1973 SC 964).
14. By the very nature of things, no
one has a legal right to claim a
reward. The scheme itself shows that it
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7867/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
is purely an ex-gratia payment subject
to guidelines and may be granted on the
absolute discretion of the competent
authority and cannot be claimed by
anyone as a matter of right. xxx xxx "
In the facts of the present case,
the respondents were not performing any
statutory duty imposed upon them and
therefore it cannot be said that there
is failure on the part of the officer
to discharge the statutory obligation.
A writ of mandamus, therefore, cannot
be issued in the matter.
In view of the aforesaid settled
position of law, we do not intend to
undertake the futile exercise of dealing
with each and every judgment cited before us
by learned advocate for the petitioner.
In view of a catena of decisions of the
Apex Court and well settled position of law,
grant of reward is an an ex gratia payment
and there is no vested right in any person
to claim a reward as a matter of right. The
respondents in the instant case were not
performing any statutory duty imposed upon
them and, therefore, it cannot be said that
there is failure on their part to discharge
any statutory obligation warranting exercise
of writ jurisdiction to compel performance
of such duties prescribed by any statute.
The policy of reward is only a 'scheme' and
not a 'statute'.
Before parting with this order, we may
also record that in the secret information
filed by the petitioner, he has
categorically stated as under:
"If deem fit, I may be rewarded
suitably, but I shall not claim as a
matter of right and shall not enter
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7867/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
into correspondence to assert my claim
of reward."
In the circumstances, even otherwise
than the aforesaid legal position, the
petitioner is estopped from raising the
claim as a matter or right, much less a
petition under the writ jurisdiction
compelling the respondents to satisfy the
claim.
In light of the aforesaid discussion,
this petition deserves to be dismissed, and
is hereby dismissed.
Notice is discharged. No order as to costs."
10. In view of the above facts and proposition
of law laid down by this Court, we are of the
opinion that the petitioner could not make out
a case for any interference and, therefore,
the petition is not entertained. The petition
is, accordingly, dismissed.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J)
(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J)
SAJ GEORGE
