‘Barking up wrong tree’: Madras High Court rejects plea seeking Rs 1 lakh reward for luxury car smuggling tip-off

Background

• Sankar, appearing as party-in-person, claimed that he and his father had provided key intelligence in 2008 to authorities regarding the illegal import of luxury cars by one Alex C Joseph.
• According to him, the information led to the seizure of 50 vehicles between 2012 and 2014 involving alleged customs duty evasion of Rs 48.5 crore.
• He contended that while his father was paid a “token reward” of Rs 27,000 in 2010, they were entitled to a total of Rs 1.55 lakh, leaving a balance of Rs 1.28 lakh unpaid.
• After years of correspondence, Sankar approached the Madras High Court seeking to quash the rejection letter by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and a direction to process his reward claim.

CBI’s stand: No scheme for informer rewards

Opposing the petition, the CBI argued that there is no scheme mandating the payment of rewards to informers. It further contended that Sankar had no locus to question the investigation or seek such benefits.

The agency maintained that the claim had been rightly rejected as no records showed that any CBI case had been registered based on the petitioner’s information.

Court’s findings: No proof, no legal basis

The high court identified multiple deficiencies in the petitioner’s case:

• No evidence submitted: Sankar failed to produce any documentary proof, including alleged “recording slips” or proof of payment of Rs 27,000.
• No applicable guidelines: The petitioner relied on reward guidelines issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), but the Madras High Court held that these could not be applied to the CBI, which has no such scheme.
• Contradictory claims: The court noted inconsistencies in the petitioner’s submissions, including incorrect attribution of official communications.
• Delay and laches: The petitioner remained inactive for nearly eight years (2015–2023) before reviving his claim without explanation.
• Repeated litigation: The issue had already been raised in an earlier writ petition dismissed in 2024, making the present plea untenable.

Wasting judicial time: Court

The Madras High Court expressed its “displeasure and annoyance” towards the petitioner for filing multiple petitions on the same issue. It was observed that Sankar had attempted to re-agitate an identical grievance under different legal formulations, which amounted to an abuse of process.

“This writ petition stands dismissed and while holding so, this Court records its feeling of displeasure and annoyance towards the petitioner in filing one writ petition after the other seeking the same relief, thereby wasting the judicial time,” the court said.

However, noting that the petitioner appeared in person, the Madras High Court refrained from imposing costs and instead advised him to “mend his ways.”

Final order

Dismissing the petition, the Madras High Court held that Sankar had failed to establish any right to claim the alleged reward from the CBI. The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed.