JUDGMENT M.M. Pareed Pillay, J. 1. Petitioner seeks to quash Ext. P-7 order of the second respondent whereby Rs. 25,000/- was sanctioned as additional amount pursuant to his claim. Petitioner was an informant in the seizure of smuggled goods by Customs Department. 40000 gold biscuits and 4998 wrist watches were seized on the information supplied by the Petitioner. A reward of Rs 25,000/- was given to the petitioner on 27-1-1969. He made several representations for higher amount not being satisfied with the said reward. To the lawyer notice reply was sent stating that petitioner has no statutory right for the reward and the amount already given is adequate. Petitioner challenged the said order before this Court in O. P. 9014 of 1982. This Court by Ext. P1 judgment directed to reconsider the matter and pass fresh orders in the light of the observations contained in the judgment. Against Ext. P-1 judgment, Writ Appeal 355 of 1984 was filed. The writ appeal was dismissed making it clear that the authorities have a discretion to grant reasonable reward to the petitioner bearing in mind the valuable information supplied by him which resulted in substantial recovery of contraband goods. In the judgment in W. A. 355 of 1984 (Ext. P-4) it is also observed that the authority has to consider as to what higher amount than what has already been offered can be given to the petitioner by way of reward. 2. As per Ext. P-5 order, a further sum of Rs. 2,500/- was sanctioned to the petitioner. This order was challenged by the petitioner ia O. P. 7874 of 1986. That original petition was allowed by Ext. P-6 judgment dated 4-4-1988. Ext. P-5 order was quashed and second respondent was directed to consider the matter afresh ia the light of the observations contained in the judgment and also in the judgments In O. P.9014 of 1982 and W. A. 355 of 1984. It is thereafter that Ext. P-7 order was communicated to the petitioner. 3. Contention of the petitioner is that as per Ext. P-7 only a paltry amount was sanctioned and that it has no proportion to the value of the contraband articles seized. Counsel submitted that proper discretion has not been exercised by the second respondent while passing Ext. It is thereafter that Ext. P-7 order was communicated to the petitioner. 3. Contention of the petitioner is that as per Ext. P-7 only a paltry amount was sanctioned and that it has no proportion to the value of the contraband articles seized. Counsel submitted that proper discretion has not been exercised by the second respondent while passing Ext. P-7 order and as the reward amount has been arbitrarily fixed without any nexus to substantial gains in favour of the State as a result of the seizure of the contraband articles and as the second respondent has not complied with the directions in Exts. P-1, P-4 and P-5 judgments Ext P-7 cannot be sustained. The learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel pointed out that the discretion in sanctioning The reward was properly utilised by the second respondent and it cannot be subjected to judicial review. It is also contended by him that the information given by the petitioner was not fully correct though ultimately it proved to be beneficial to the State and though petitioner was not really entitled to any reward additional amount of Rs. 25,000/- was sanctioned as per Ext. P-7 on the basis of the judgment of this Court in O. P. 7874 of 1986 and he is not entitled to any additional amount. 4. In the judgment in W.A. 355 of 1984 it was made clear that the authorities have a discretion to grant reasonable reward to the petitioner bearing in mind the valuable information that was furbished by him and which resulted in substantial recovery of contraband goods. As there is no statutory rule or administrative circular empowering the second respondent to sanction the reward in proportion to the value of the contraband articles seized and as the sanction of the reward is dependent upon his discretion, the question that arises for consideration is whether the discretion exercised by the second respondent can be interfered by this Court in the proceedings under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Admittedly petitioner has no statutory right to claim a percentage of the value of the contraband articles seized. Reward is entirely left to the discretion of the second respondent to be decided in his discretionary power. When that discretion is exercised by the authority concerned, this Court's power to interfere with it is very much limited. If there is patent discrimination, this Court can certainly interfere. Reward is entirely left to the discretion of the second respondent to be decided in his discretionary power. When that discretion is exercised by the authority concerned, this Court's power to interfere with it is very much limited. If there is patent discrimination, this Court can certainly interfere. But in a case where a person is not able to establish that he is entitled to a particular percentage of the value of the contraband articles seized he cannot obviously challenge the reward amount sanctioned by excising the discretionary power of the authority concerned. 6. There are statutes conferring power on administrative authorities to exercise it in their discretion. As observed by Wade in Administrative Law Page 394 Sixth Edition the discretionary power conferred upon public authorities is not absolute, even within its apparent boundaries, but is subject to general legal limitations, The limitations are that it should be exercised reasonably and in good faith, that relevant considerations only must be taken into account and that there must be no malversation of any kind or that the decision must not be arbitrary or capricious, When the Parliament confers power on any authority to be used in its discretion it is obvious that the discretion ought to be that of the designated authority and not that of the court. It may not be possible for the Court to substitute its decision over a matter decided by an authority using its own discretionary power. 7. When the administrative authority is given discretionary power, h has to be exercised by that authority and it cannot be interfered by the Court so long as there was no discrimination in its exercise. When discretionary power is vested with an authority, the assumption is that it would act property and with high sense of responsibility. As the Court cannot have the insight into the matter once an authority uses its discretionary power to decide in a particular manner, remedy cannot be through recourse to court. Of course, discretion cannot be used in an arbitrary, vague or fanciful manner. In every exercise of discretionary power some element of arbitrariness may be there. Challenge against exercise of discretionary power is indeed a difficult task. Of course, discretion cannot be used in an arbitrary, vague or fanciful manner. In every exercise of discretionary power some element of arbitrariness may be there. Challenge against exercise of discretionary power is indeed a difficult task. An authority who has to exercise discretionary power has to perform it on reasonable grounds, he cannot do what he likes, he must view the overall situation in the back drop of the entire matter and use the power in accordance with his reasoning faculty and power. When the administrative authority has used its discretion taking all aspects into consideration, Court cannot supplant is by its decision particularly when the Statute does not confer any role to the Court to interfere with the discretion exercised by the authority. 8. There is nothing like an absolute and unfettered discretion immune from judicial review. The exercise of discretionary power by the administrative authority can be challenged on the ground of gross arbitrariness, discrimination or malafide or when the power is exercised at the dictates of some one else. Petitioner could not establish that the discretion exercised by the second respondent suffers from any such vice. The discretionary power exercised by the second respondent cannot be challenged merely because the petitioner did not get the reward he expected. Petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought in the Original Petition. O. P is dismissed. No costs.