CWP No. 8835 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 8835 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision: 24.08.2010 Karmat Rahi ...Petitioner Vs. Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents CORAM Hon'ble Mr.Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Mr.Ranjan Lakhanpal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Geeta Singhwal,Sr.Central Government Standing Counsel, for respondents No.1,3 & 5. Mr.N.S.Virk,Addl.A.G., Punjab. --- Vinod K.Sharma, J . (Oral) The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to give employment to the petitioner along with adequate compensation for his sufferings. Pleaded case of the petitioner is, that the petitioner was motivated by the RAW agency to work as a spy for India and go to Pakistan. The petitioner was assured that he would be given a regular CWP No. 8835 of 2007 2 employment in the police and in case of his arrest in Pakistan his family would be taken care of and he would further be adequately compensated for his suffering for the nation. Case of the petitioner is, that on the assurance referred to above he went to Pakistan on 23.6.1988 and thereafter made number of trips to Pakistan and brought vital information for defence of the country and for the army. The petitioner was subsequently arrested and sentenced to imprisonment for 14 years under Official Secrets Act, 1923 by Pakistan. The petitioner after being repatriated filed CW P No. 10039 of 2006 seeking similar relief which was disposed of by this court by passing the following order:- “Viney Mittal J,(Oral) The petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of a direction to the respondents to give him employment and also adequate compensation on account of the fact that the petitioner had suffered for the nation. Without going into the merits of the controversy, we fined that the petitioner had already filed a representation dated May 4, 2005 (Annexure P.3) which remains unrespondded. Consequently, we dispose of the present petition with a request to the Director General of Police, Punjab, respondent No.4 to look into the aforesaid representation filed by the petitioner and take a final decision thereupon within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is CWP No. 8835 of 2007 3 received, by passing a detailed speaking order. A copy of the order be given dasti on payment of usual charges. Sd/- Viney Mittal, Judge Sd/- H.S.Bhalla Judge” Representation made by the petitioner was rejected by recording a finding that he was never on the rolls of Police Department and therefore, his request for salary of 18 years and expenditure amount for 17 years could not be accepted by the Police Department. The petitioner has not impugned the order passed by the Director General of Police, Punjab and has again filed writ petition claiming the same relief. Notice of motion was issued. In the written statement filed by respondents No.2 and 4, the order passed on the representation, has been reiterated and it is prayed, that the writ petition be dismissed. Respondent No.1 Government of India, by way of separate written statement have denied the averments made in the writ petition by pleading therein, that the writ petition filed is misconceived and misdirected. It has also been averred that the matter has been examined in consultation with Security/Intelligence Agency, wherein it has been specifically denied, that the petitioner was ever recruited or the Union of India has any association with the petitioner. The stand is correct as it is not expected nor can it be accepted that a spy can be recruited for being CWP No. 8835 of 2007 4 deputed to other country. On consideration of matter, I find the writ petition to be totally misconceived. The averments seem to be the imagination of the petitioner as there is nothing on record to prove the engagement of the petitioner by RAW or any Government Agency, nor the story put up by the petitioner can be believed that the petitioner was so employed by RAW. The allegations made in the petition are deliberate and intentional mis-statement of fact to claim compensation and employment to which he is not entitled to. No court can accept averments made by the petitioner in the absence of any material remotely connecting the petitioner with employment. The courts do not act on figment of imagination of a person. Writ petition, therefore, is nothing but misuse of process of the court as the story raised is not only false but on the face of it cannot be believed or accepted. Mr.Ranjan Lakhanpal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in support of this claim relied upon the interim order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in Special Civl Application No.12239 of 2007 Maya Devi Vs. Union of India and Ors, wherein the following order was passed:- “ In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case which are narrated in the petition and in the further affidavit filed by the petitioner (widowed mother of Shri Kuldipkunar Nanakchand Yadav) and having regard to the order dated 26 May, 2004 passed by the Delhi High Court in the similar matter between Balwan Singh Vs. Union of India (CWP No.6643 of CWP No. 8835 of 2007 5 2001), we direct the respondents to pay the petitioner dependent mother of Shri Kuldipkunar Nanakchand Yadav, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lacs only) within one month from today. Adjourned to 7th May,2008.” It is merely an ad interim order. Nothing has been disclosed as to what were the facts and circumstances of that case. In any case, this cannot be treated to be a precedent. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition being misconceived and misuse of the process of courts, is dismissed with costs which are assessed at Rs.25,000/- only (Rupees twenty five thousand only). (Vinod K.Sharma) 24.08.2010 Judge RS/rp