Judgment :- SATHIADEV, A.C.J. 1. This appeal is preferred against the order in W.P. 8985 of 1989 by the petitioners therein. They sought for a writ of Mandamus to issue to the respondents to nay them the reward amount of Rs 4.62.700 being 20% of the estimated market value of the contraband goods seized on information furnished by them On the learned Judge dismissing the writ petition in limine , this writ appeal is preferred. 2. Appellants claimed that on 10th May, 1986 when they went out for fishing off Kodayar, thev found certain bundles floating in the sea and two presons struggling for help. Immediately, they salvaged the bundles and rescued the two persons and on finding that they were contraband goods, they informed the Customs Official, who immediately proceeded with his party and met the appellants in the sea off Nagore and took possession of the goods They contained 16 gunny bundles containing VCRs and Zip fasteners of foreign origin In the order issued by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Trichi dated 30 10-1987 in paragraph 2 therein, reference is made to the seizure of goods from the appellants and about the Superintendent of Central Excise. Naganattinam, on information given by them, taking custody of the said goods. 3. Thereafter, on 21-2 1988. the second respondent was addressed bv the appellants for payment of the reward amount based on the procedure as prescribed in S.O.No 41 of 1985 for granting rewards to informants. There was no reply and another letter was sent on 23rd May, 1988 which was also not responded. Personal approach made to the third respondent bad not evoked any response to secure the relief prayed for in the writ petition. Hence they had to institute the writ petition. 4. Learned counsel Mr. Chandramouli would submit that when the factual aspects of appellants being informants and taking custody of the contraband goods at the instance of the appellants could not be disputed as they formed part of the records andthat too when it forms the basis for the order dated 30-10-1987 being passed by the Collector Customs and Central Excise, Trichi. It is regrettable that ‘he respondents have not chosen to reward the appellants as per the policy decision, in spite of written repre sentation sent to them repeatedly. 5. It is regrettable that ‘he respondents have not chosen to reward the appellants as per the policy decision, in spite of written repre sentation sent to them repeatedly. 5. Mr Suryaprakasam, learned counsel for the respondents, by relying upon a telex message received would state that on the representations made by them; appropriate orders would be passed based on the merits of the claim within a reasonable time. He also submits that the percentage prescribed in S.O. No. 41 of 1985 depends upon several factors which will have to be taken into account and, therefore, instead of granting relief in the nature prayed for, the respondents could be enabled to pass apposite order on the petitions submitted by the appellants. 6. Once it is found that the contraband, goods could be taken custody of by the customs officials only on information given by the appellants as found in the order dated 30-10-1987, unless the respondent on valid grounds hold them as not informants their entitlement to claim rewards cannot be discountenanced. No doubt, learned counsel Mr. Suryaprakasam would state that unless they come within the category of informant, taking custody of the articles by them and handing them over to the Customs Officials, may not entitle them to secure the relief which they are presently claiming. At this stage, of the matter, when the respondents have offered to consider their claims on merits this claim made by their learned counsel is not gone into and left to be considered by the authorities. 7. While passing orders on the claims made by them, it will be obligatory on the part of the respondents to give reasons for the conclusions arrived at. As to the percentage to which they would be entitled to in the event of reward being granted, as to why anything less than what is prescribed under the policy circular is being granted to them, suitable reasons will have to be given. 8. The order of the learned Judge proceeds on the basis as if they cannot claim to be informants under the said Notification. It is unfortunate that these findings have been rendered without the relevant materials being available before the Court. The order dated 30-10-1987 refers to certain factual aspects and yet contrary to these factual aspects, the learned Judge had come to the conclusion as if they cannot claim to be informants. It is unfortunate that these findings have been rendered without the relevant materials being available before the Court. The order dated 30-10-1987 refers to certain factual aspects and yet contrary to these factual aspects, the learned Judge had come to the conclusion as if they cannot claim to be informants. None of these findings in the said order could be sustained and therefore, they are all set aside. Without in any manner being influenced by the conclusions in the order of the learned Judge which is set aside in this appeal, the respondents will have to dispose of the claims of the appellants on their merits. 9. Before concluding, it is necessary to state that any observation or direction to an authority to do an act which is not covered either by an Act or the Rules or Regulations or Notifications, would be inappropriate. Once a conclusion is arrived at that the authority had acted within the ambit of law, which results in the petition being dismissed; no further directions can be granted by the Court to the authority to act out side the Act as Rules, Regulations or Notifications. It would in law tantamount to an authority being directed to act contrary to law. In enforcing the Rule of law, a court would not be act ing within its jurisdiction to make observations or issue directions to an authority to do acts which are not permissible under Acts, Rules Regulations or Notifications and the like. After upholding action of the authority, a direction to do differently or to make recommendatory suggestions etc. would not be proper. When such observations are made, an authority would be placed in a quandry, because his order having been upheld by the Court, yet be is called upon to act outside the power available to him in law. While dismissing a plea, it will he salutary to avoid observations which take away the impact of the conclusion arrived at by court. Therefore for upholding rule of law, any observation of a recommendatory nature which is contrary to the conclusions arrived at will have to be avoided. 10. Hence, this writ appeal is allowed with a direction to the respondents to pass appropriate orders on the petitions filed by the appellants on 21-2-1988 and 23-3-1989, on or before 31-3-1990. No costs.