ANIL SINGHAL  Vs DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF INCOME TAX INVESTIGATION & ANR.

W.P.(C) 54/2021 Page 1 of 3
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 54/2021
ANIL SINGHAL ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mayank Sapre, Adv.

versus

DIRECTORATE OF INCOME TAX INVESTIGATION
& ANR. ….. Respondents
Through: Mr. Raghvendra Singh, Sr.S.C.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
O R D E R
% 05.01.2021
[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
1. The petitioner seeks mandamus to the respondents (i) Directorate of
Income Tax Investigation; and, (ii) Member Investig ation, Central Board of
Direct Taxes, to conduct an investigation in a time bound manner in
pursuance to the Tax Evasion Petition (TEP) dated 2 0 th June, 2020 and
Benami Transaction Tax Evasion Petition dated 18 th March, 2020 lodged by
the petitioner with the respondents against M/s Jag dish Prasad Agarwal
(JPA) & M/s Vijay Automobiles and to treat the said TEPs under the Income
Tax Informants Rewards Scheme, 2018.
2. The petitioner had not impleaded the aforesaid M /s JPA or M/s Vijay
Automobiles as respondents to this petition.
3. The petitioner, in the petition has pleaded that the petition is filed by
him as a public spirited person. However, in spite of the said averment, the
same has not been labelled as a Public Interest Lit igation and is not in
2021:DHC:20-DBW.P.(C) 54/2021 Page 2 of 3
compliance with the Delhi High Court (Public Intere st Litigation) Rules,
2010 for filing Public Interest Litigation and whic h Rules inter alia require
the petitioner to make a declaration that there is no personal interest in the
litigation and that the petition is not guided by s elf-gain or for gain of any
other person/institution/body and that there is no motive other than of public
interest. Rather, the petitioner in the petition ha s expressly pleaded that his
father-in-law, Late Shri Jagdish Prasad Agarwal, wa s a partner in M/s JPA
and M/s Vijay Automobiles against whom complaints o f tax evasion have
been made and that the other partners of the said M /s JPA and M/s Vijay
Automobiles have not settled the accounts with the legal heirs of Late Shri
Jagdish Prasad Agarwal, being the father-in-law of the petitioner and one of
which legal heirs, Smt. Usha Singhal, is the wife o f the petitioner. Thus
prima facie it appears that TEPs filed by the petitioner or by any of the other
legal heirs or at their instance as well as this pe tition, are to coerce the said
M/s JPA and M/s Vijay Automobiles to settle the cla ims, inter alia of the
petitioner’s wife.
4. The same cannot be permitted and is an abuse of the process of the
Court. The Court cannot allow its machinery and pr ocess to be used and
invoked by such unscrupulous petitioners, to settle their own scores.
5. Though certain schemes brought out by the Income Tax Department
encourage the filing of complaints of income tax ev asion to be made and
which can obviously be made only by insiders who ha ve fallen apart from
the entity/person earlier indulging in tax evasion, but the petitioner, though
referring to the same, has not filed any copy of th e said scheme and has not
shown any provision under which the petitioner, bes ides lodging a complaint
or furnishing information, has a right to activate the Court machinery to
2021:DHC:20-DBW.P.(C) 54/2021 Page 3 of 3
issue mandamus to the respondent to take further ac tion against the person/s
complained against.
6. Be that as it may, such abuse of process of this Court cannot be
permitted.
7. The counsel for the petitioner, who is young wit h only three years of
experience at the Bar as informed, states that he r ealises his mistake and
withdraws the petition, without any liberty to purs ue the misconceived
action any further but with liberty to take steps u nder the Informants
Scheme, if any, of the Income Tax Department.
8. Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty aforesaid.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

SANJEEV NARULA, J.
JANUARY 5, 2021
SU

2021:DHC:20-DB