JUDGMENT
1. This is a writ petition, by a person, who claims to be an informer to the Income-tax Department. The contention is that for the information which has been given by him during his occupation as a professional informer to the Income-tax Department, the commensurate "reward" has not been forthcoming. Thus, the petitioner desires a writ from the High Court that his percentage, in reference to the context of recoveries facilitated from the raids amounting to Rs. 3,59,80,000, as final reward is not being delivered to the petitioner by the Income-tax Department.
2. The petitioner, Ram Baran Misra, registered as professional informer, has a Code No. 102, and is resident of 6-19, Baisnav Para, First Lane, P. O. Maheshsri, Rampur, District Hooghli, West Bengal. His complaint before the High Court is that the petitioner has been successful in facilitating raids against the persons mentioned in this writ petition. These raids have facilitated recoveries to the Income-lax Department amounting lo about Rs. 36 crores. This amount includes income, penalty and interest.
3. The court does not consider it appropriate to disclose the names of the persons whom the petitioner has mentioned in his writ petition as information which the petitioner may have delivered to the income-tax authorities, as until final assessment has been made this information is confidential and retained as such by the Assistant Director of Investigation. The pelitioner has appended to the writ petition annexures which are labelled "Gopniya", that is to say, confidential.
4. The information which the petitioner is disclosing in the present writ petition, is subject to a code of conduct between the petitioner and the Department, the nature of which is confidential. The quality of information and its grading is referred to in an official publication "for Departmental use only" and known as the Search and Seizure Manual. The evaluation of the reward would depend directly and proportionate to the extent of the help rendered by the informer in the shape of evidence, documents, etc ; the risk, trouble, expense and sacrifice incurred by the informer ; the difficulty in securing the information and the quantum of additional tax involved. The assessment of the reward itself takes place in three stages : (i) ad hoc, (ii) interim, and (iii) final. Whatever may be the code of conduct between the petitioner and the Income-tax Department, it is contained in the Search and Seizure Manual.
5. If the contention be that it is a fundamental right of the petitioner to have an occupation as an "informer", the court has reservations on such a claim. Regard being had to the contents of the Search and Seizure. Manual, the occupation of an "informer" and remuneration is directly related to the quality of the information and its result. The reward will ' bo directly proportionate to the quality and content of information. Snooping on tax evaders is the business of the tax-man. But, the aides who facilltate locating hidden income have a special code of conduct with the Income-tax Department, which cannot be enforced by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction.
6. This is not a case in which the High Court would like to issue a writ to the respondents. The petitioner may seek remedies as he may be advised.
7. The writ petition is misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed.