Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 38 (ALL)

R. B. SHARMA v. UNION OF INDIA

2000-01-11

M.C.AGARWAL, S.R.ALAM

body2000
( 1 ) BY means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for the following reliefs. (i) issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the letters dated 27. 09. 1999, 16. 04. 1999 and 03. 03. 1999 as contained in Annexure No. 84 as well as the decision of opposite party No. 3 Director General, Anti-Evasion (Reward Sanctioning Authority) with regard to payment of final reward to the petitioner after summoning the original of the same from the opposite party. (ii) issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to pay to the petitioner final reward at the rate of 20% of the duty evaded, fine and penalty which comes to Rs. 29,41,711. 00 and the amount paid to the petitioner as Advance reward may be adjusted. (iii) issue a suitable writ, order or direction commanding the opposite parties to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum since Jan. 1996 on the sum of reward till the date of actual payment of reward to the petitioner. ( 2 ) WE have heard Sri P. P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri D. V. Singh, counsel for the petitioner and Sri RD. Gupta, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. ( 3 ) THE Government pronounced a Scheme in which reward was to be given to the persons who will give information regarding evasion of tax. The Scheme is contained in a Circular letter E no. 13011/3/85 - Ad. V. dated 30th March, 1985 and a copy thereof is annexed to the writ petition as Annexure No. 1. The petitioner claims that he furnished valuable information about evasion of Central Excise Duty by a public sector undertaking namely M/s. Cawnpore Woollen mills branch of the British India Corporation Ltd. Kanpur and as a result of protracted effort by the petitioner dues amounting to Rs. 1,32,08,555. 99 where adjudicated against the said Mills out of which about Rs. 94,00,000/- have already been realised and that the petitioner was entitled to reward at the rate of 20% thereof. However, the authorities initially awarded Rs. 2. 25 lacs to the petitioner and subsequently awarded Rs. 30,000/- as final reward. 1,32,08,555. 99 where adjudicated against the said Mills out of which about Rs. 94,00,000/- have already been realised and that the petitioner was entitled to reward at the rate of 20% thereof. However, the authorities initially awarded Rs. 2. 25 lacs to the petitioner and subsequently awarded Rs. 30,000/- as final reward. The communication is contained in a letter dated 3rd March, 1999 issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of india stating that that is the final award commensurate to the information supplied by the petitioner. The petitioners claim is that the reward is insufficient and the amount of the award has been arbitrarily fixed and the petitioner should have been granted reward at the rate of 20% of the duty payable. ( 4 ) THE Scheme mentions in paragraph 3. 2. 1 that informants and Government servants will be eligible for reward up to 20% of the duty, if any, sought to be evaded plus 20% of the fine and penalty levied, imposed and realised. The paragraph 4 (1) of the Scheme is as under : reward is purely an ex-gratia payment which subject to the guidelines, may be granted on the absolute discretion of the authority competent to grant rewards and cannot be claimed by anyone as a matter of right. In determining the reward will keep in mind the specificity and accuracy of the information, the risk and trouble undertaken, the extent and nature of help rendered by the informer, whether information gives clues to persons involved in smuggling, or their associates, etc. , the risk involved for the Government servants in working out the case, the difficulty in securing the information, the extent to which the vigilance of the staff led to the seizures, special initiative, efforts and ingenuity displayed, etc. , and whether besides the seizures of contraband goods, the owners/organizers/financiers/ racketeers as well as the carriers have been apprehended or not. ( 5 ) THUS the Scheme clearly provides that the reward cannot be claimed as a matter of right and is purely ex-gratia payment in the absolute discretion of the authority competent to grant the reward. , and whether besides the seizures of contraband goods, the owners/organizers/financiers/ racketeers as well as the carriers have been apprehended or not. ( 5 ) THUS the Scheme clearly provides that the reward cannot be claimed as a matter of right and is purely ex-gratia payment in the absolute discretion of the authority competent to grant the reward. The Scheme, however mentions that in determining the reward the authority will keep in mind the specificity and accuracy of the information, the risk and trouble undertaken, the extent and the nature of the help rendered by the informer, whether information gives clues to persons involves in smuggling or their associates etc. Thus apart from the fact that the determination of the amount of reward was in the discretion of the competent authority, various factors have to be taken into account and the writ petition is not in a proper forum for investigating these points which were relevant for determining the amount of reward. ( 6 ) IN our view, therefore, the matter cannot be agitated in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. .