'Can Only Commend If He Has Played A Role': Delhi High Court To Litigant Who Wanted To Be Declared Whistleblower Of PMC Bank Scam

Rejecting a plea that had sought a direction for declaring the petitioner as the whistleblower of the Punjab and Maharashtra Cooperative (PMC) Bank scam, the Delhi High Court has said the person would have to have a basis in law to claim a reward in respect of the same.

"This Court, at best, can commend the Petitioner if he has played a role in unearthing the said scam, and for discharging his duty as a responsible citizen. No further reliefs can be granted by this Court beyond the said observation," said the court.

The petitioner Mukesh Sharma had prayed for a declaration as a whistleblower of a scam relating to the PMC Bank and Housing Development Infrastructure Limited. Sharma in the petition said he had written to various authorities in May 2019 about the "diversion of bank loans and other illegal activities" of certain individuals.

His grievance before the court was that though various actions were taken by the RBI, the petitioner was not given credit "for being the person who bought this to the notice of government authorities". He relied upon a RBI letter "wherein the action taken pursuant to" his letters was "set out".

The central government in response said that no legal right has been established by the petitioner to seek the relief which is being sought in the present case.

Justice Prathiba M. Singh said the question as to whether the petitioner's letters and complaints played a role in unearthing the scam cannot be decided by the court in a writ petition, as the same would require a large number of facts to be gone into.

"Moreover, this Court is of the opinion that if the Petitioner has, as a responsible citizen, brought any issues to the knowledge of the authorities concerned, the Petitioner would have to have a basis in law to claim a reward in respect of the same," Justice Singh said.

While disposing of the petition, the court clarified that the remedies, if any, of the petitioner are left open. "If the Petitioner has any remedy available to him under any statute or policies of any financial organization or governmental authority, he is at liberty to pursue the same," it added.

Title: MUKESH SHARMA vs MINISTRY OF FINANCE REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS SECRETARY & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1174