... 1 ... IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT CONTEMPT CONTEMPT PETITION NO.407 OF 2006 PETITION NO.407 OF 2006 PETITION NO.407 OF 2006 Satish Mehta ...Petitioner Versus K.M.Chandrashekar & Ors. ...Respondents Shri Mihir Desai i/by Shri V.G.Rege for the Petitioner. Shri G.E.Vahanvati, Solicitor General of India, Shri B.A. Desai, Additional Solicitor General of India, Shri Ravi Kadam, Advocate General i/by Shri Vineet Naik for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. DATED DATED DATED : JUNE 13, 2007. : JUNE 13, 2007. : JUNE 13, 2007. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. The submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties were heard on 08th June, 2007. The breach alleged by the Petitioner is of order dated 09th December, 2005 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.8426 of 2005. 2. According to the case of the Petitioner, he provided accurate, credible and reliable information about violations of Provisions of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and acts of indulgence in hawala transaction on the part of one Shri Punjabhai Hansraj Shah and others. According to the case of the Petitioner, on search of the premises of the said Punjabhai Shah, cash amount of Rs.58,30,000/- and some ... 2 ... incriminating articles were found. An order was passed in the adjudication proceeding imposing penalty of Rs.17,53,00,000/-. According to the case of the Petitioner, the Respondents failed to pay the amount of reward to him as per the policy of the Government of India and therefore, Writ Petition No.824 of 2005 was filed by the Petitioner. The Petition was disposed of by the aforesaid order dated 09th December, 2005 by directing the Respondents to decide the representation of the Petitioner at the earliest in accordance with their policy and preferrably within three months. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner invited my attention to the communication dated 01st May, 2006 issued by the Deputy Director of the Directorate of Enforcement to the Petitioner. He pointed out that the said communication records that claim of the Petitioner for grant of reward has been considered by the Directorate and an advance reward of Rs.2.5 lakhs has been granted to the Petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner pointed out that last part of the said communication makes it very clear that there is no final order passed by the authorities on the representation of the Petitioner and the same has been kept pending. He submitted that a final order on the representation made by the Petitioner ... 3 ... for grant of reward ought to have been passed by the concerned Respondents within a period of three months from 09th December, 2005. He, therefore, submitted that this is a case of deliberate breach of the order passed by this Court. The learned Solicitor General of India pointed out relevant parts of the affidavits filed by the concerned Respondents and submitted that considering the fact that order of adjudication has been challenged before the Tribunal and the fact that penalty is yet to be recovered, the final reward can be determined only after the adjudication proceedings attain finality and penalty is recovered. He stated that the claim made by the Petitioner will be finally decided by the concerned authority within a period of three months from the date on which the adjudication proceedings reach finality and the penalty is recovered. 4. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that the advance reward of Rs.2.5 lakhs is not in conformity with the policy of the Government of India considering the amount which is already recovered. He submitted that as per the policy, final decision need not wait till the adjudication proceedings attain finality as the challenge to adjudication is made by a third party. ... 4 ... 5. I have considered the submissions. The communication dated 01st May, 2006 shows that the representation made by the Petitioner has been considered by the authorities and advance reward of Rs.2.5 lakhs is admittedly released. It will be necessary to refer to various averments made in the affidavits filed by the Respondents. There is an affidavit filed by one Shri Sudhir Nath who is the second contemnor and who is a Director in the Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India. In paragraph No.11 of his affidavit, he has stated that while processing the claim for reward made by the Petitioner it was noticed that an Appeal has been filed by one Jayanti P. Shah which is still pending before the Appellate Tribunal. It is stated that the Directorate of Enforcement has made a request to the Tribunal to dispose of the Appeal expeditiously. In the said affidavit, in paragraph No.15 thereof he has noted the recommendation made by the concerned committee which reads thus: "After considering the reward rules, the Adjudication Order and the reward proposal received from Mumbai, we feel that as a part payment the reward to the extent of Rs.2.5 lakhs to the informer may be considered in the ... 5 ... instant case. The final reward shall be subject to the outcome of the order of ATFE/High Court etc". In the said paragraph the second contemnor has stated thus: "It is humbly submitted that in view of the fact that the Adjudication order has been challenged before the Tribunal and the fact that recoveries of penalties are still to be made, the reward at this stage can only be advance reward. Final Reward can be paid only after the adjudication order reaches finality and the penalties imposed are recovered". In paragraph No.20 of the said affidavit, it is stated as under: "It is submitted that all the relevant aspects of the matter will be given due consideration at the appropriate stage of finalization of the matter, which will be consequent to the disposal of the appeal finally filed by one of the noticees and realization of outstanding penalty". ... 6 ... 6. The learned Solicitor General of India has made a statement that the claim for final reward will be considered and decided within a period of three months from the date on which adjudication proceedings attain finality. The said statement is accepted. 7. Considering what is stated in the affidavit of the second contemnor, it is obvious that there is no deliberate or wilful breach of the order passed by this Court. 8. Therefore, it is not necessary to take any further action against the contemnors under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Hence, subject to what is observed above, the contempt notice issued to the Respondent is discharged. Contempt Petition is disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE