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

Respondent Nos.12 to 22 in accordance with law.   The

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

CEO of the said company from June 2014 till 31st

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

India & Ors. [2014(2) SCCC 609], we are not inclined to

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  qua  respondent No.12 –

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  qua  respondent No.12 – Company

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