RAGHBIR SINGH Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has sought issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to the Central Bureau of Investigation and Enforcement Directorate, respondent nos. 1 and 2, respectively to comply with the judgment of Honourable the Supreme Court of India, under Art. 141 of the Constitution of India, rendered in Lalita Kumari Vs. State of U.P. & ors., (Constitution Bench), 2013 (4) RCR (Cri), 979, by taking action on the information provided by the petitioner through letter dated 17.11.2016 Annexure P3, by registering the FIR against K.K. Jalan, IAS, Secretary, Ministry of Small and Medium Enterprises under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption of Act and Prevention of Money Laundering Act. He has further sought a direction that respondent nos.1 and 2 should confiscate the proceeds of the crime of corruption and award compensation to the petitioner for providing information about the offences of corruption and money laundering.

(2.) A perusal of the petition indicates that the petitioner claims that he is an RTI Activist, Whistle Blower and informer of various law enforcement agencies and he claims credit of having exposed recently a scam of more than rupees ten thousand crores in which the Enforcement Directorate has registered a case and High Court has granted him police protection. The petitioner became aware through Internet and other sources about the commission of serious offences of corruption against the aforesaid officer. The petitioner claims that he has got a statutory duty as per Sec. 39 Crimial P.C. read with Articles 14, 19, 21 and 51 of the Constitution of India, and the obligations envisaged in the U.N. Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) 2003, and thus provided information about the commission of cognisable offences to the respondents and requested them to register the case under the relevant provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. A copy of said letter has been appended with the petition as Annexure P3. The petitioner, in para 3 of his petition claims that the petition has the trappings of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and all the citizens are victims of corruption and money laundering.

(3.) I have carefully gone through para 2 of the petition but it does not indicate the source of the contents of the information and the name of the officer against whom such information has been collected by him.