Judgment :- The Order of the Court is as follows :- Petitioners are the fishermen and petitioners 2 to 6 went out for fishing off Kodayar on 10-5-1986 and they found some bundles floating in the sea and two persons were struggling for help. Petitioners 2 to 6 salvaged the goods and saved the life of the two individuals. Petitioners 2 to 6 informed the first petitioner who in turn informed the Customs officials and they took possession of the goods and the value of the goods seized by the authorities on the information furnished by the petitioners 2 to 6 was Rs. 4, 62, 700/-. All the petitioners claimed to the second respondent by letter dated 21-2-1988. 20% value of the goods as reward as per the Government order. There was no response to the said letter and hence the petitioners sent a reminder on 23-5-1988 and the said reminder was also not responded. Therefore, the petitioners filed W.P. No. 8985/1989 for a direction to the respondents to pay 20% of the value of the goods seized as reward amount i.e. Rs. 92, 540/-. However the said writ petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same petitioners preferred Writ Appeal 1051/1989 and by order dated 18-1-1990 a Division Bench of this Court directed the respondents to pass appropriate orders on the petition filed by the petitioners on 21-2-1988 and 23-5-1988 on or before 31-3-1990. According to the petitioners, even though this Court directed the respondents to pass orders on or before 31-3-1990, no orders have been passed within the time stipulated by this Court. Hence, the petitioners filed the Contempt Application No. 242/90. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating that the respondents have implemented the order of the High Court within the time stipulated by this court and reward has also been sanctioned on 14-9-1990 and the same will be disbursed within a fortnight. When the contempt application was taken up for hearing on 18-8-1994 the respondents tendered unconditional apology. However the petitioners disputed the said statement on the ground that no orders sanctioning the reward amount was served on the petitioners and therefore, the petitioners are to be permitted to challenge the validity of the order in the appropriate proceedings. In view of the undertaking given by the respondents, the Concept Application was closed and the notices issued were discharged. In view of the undertaking given by the respondents, the Concept Application was closed and the notices issued were discharged. When the petitioners came to know about the order dated 14-9-1990 passed by the second respondent sanctioning only a sum of Rs. 25, 000/- (Rs. 5, 000/- each to petitioners 2 to 6) as final reward amount as against the petitioners 2 to 6 petitioners filed the present writ petition. 2.According to the petitioners, para, 3.1.1 of the Government Order F. No. 13011/3/85-Ad-V. Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), New Delhi dated 30-3-1985 states that the informers and Government Servants will be eligible for rewards up to 20% of the estimated market value of the contraband goods seized. As per para 3.5.1 the informers and the Government Servants will be eligible for reward up to 20% of the amount involved in confiscation and when in addition to confiscation of without confiscation a penalty is imposed and realised, 20% of it may also be taken into account in computing the ceiling. According to the petitioners, the value of the contraband seized was Rs. 4, 62, 700/- and 20% of the reward amount would be Rs. 92, 540/-. However they have been paid only a sum of Rs. 5, 000/- each in all Rs. 25, 000/-. It is the further case of the petitioners that a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 18-1-1990 in W.A. No. 1051/1989 has observed that it will be obligatory on the part of the respondents to give reasons for the conclusion arrived at. In the impugned order, there is no reason for arriving at a sum of Rs. 25, 000/- as against the total amount of Rs. 92, 540/-. Therefore, the petitioners challenged the impugned order on the ground that it is not a speaking order. 3.In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is stated that on information on 11-5-1986 an alien boat has capsized in the sea of Kodayar and some contraband were salvaged by some Indian fishermen and being brought to Nagapattinam in an Indian Lauch for handing over the same to Customs officials. 3.In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is stated that on information on 11-5-1986 an alien boat has capsized in the sea of Kodayar and some contraband were salvaged by some Indian fishermen and being brought to Nagapattinam in an Indian Lauch for handing over the same to Customs officials. The Superintendent of Central Excise, Divisional Preventive Unit, Nagapattinam with his party conducted sea patrol in the sea off Nagore to receive the above contraband bundles and found 16 gunny bundles were salvaged by fishermen viz., the petitioners 2 to 6 and the estimated value of the goods was Rs. 4, 62, 700/-. Since there were no documents to prove the illicit importation of the goods of foreign origin, they were seized the goods under the mahazar for further action under the Customs Act, 1962. In so far as the claim of 20% of the value of the goods as reward amount by the petitioners 2 to 6, it is stated in the counter affidavit that the reward is extraordinary payment which is subject to the guidelines may be granted in the absolute discretion of the authority competent to grant reward and cannot be claimed by any one as a matter of right. In determining the reward, which may be granted by the authority competent to grant reward will keep in mind the specificity and accuracy of the information, the risk and trouble undertaken and the extent and nature of the help rendered by the informer. On consideration of the entire facts, the respondents arrived at a sum of Rs. 5, 000/- to each of the petitioners 2 to 6 in total a sum of Rs. 25, 000/-. In so far as the first petitioner is concerned, it is stated that he is not the informant and therefore, he cannot be termed as informant as per the Government Orders as the petitioners 2 to 6 only informed the first petitioner who in turn informed the Customs officials. Therefore, the claim of reward amount as against the first petitioner was rejected. 4.Based on the above pleadings, it is seen that on the night of 10-5-1986 the petitioners 2 to 6 went out for fishing off Kodayar, they found certain bundles floating in the sea and two persons were struggling for help and the petitioners 2 to 6 salvaged the 16 bundles and rescued the two persons. 4.Based on the above pleadings, it is seen that on the night of 10-5-1986 the petitioners 2 to 6 went out for fishing off Kodayar, they found certain bundles floating in the sea and two persons were struggling for help and the petitioners 2 to 6 salvaged the 16 bundles and rescued the two persons. Thereafter they had informed first petitioner about the bundles who in turn informed the Customs officials. In para 5 of the counter affidavit it is submitted that these 16 gunny bundles were salvaged by the petitioners 2 to 6 and the value of goods was Rs. 4, 62, 700/-. As per the Government Order 30-3-1985, the paragraph referring to 20% of the reward amount to the informers and Government Servants are as follows : informers and Government "3.1.1 servants will be eligible for rewards upto 20% of the estimated market value of the contraband goods seized. In respect of Gold, Silver, Opium and other narcotic drugs, etc., the overall ceilings for rewards (based on broadly 20% of the value of these items, as reconed by the Government for the present) are shown in the annexe. These would be subject to periodical revision in the light of the price fluctuations about which timely intimations should be sent to DGRI every quarter to enable him to recommend appropriate revision as and when warranted to the Ministry. Reward for detection of other offences under the Customs Act, such as, evasion of Customs duty, under/over invoicing of imports/exports, infringement of import/export licencing laws etc. (Other than those relating to Smuggling matters). Informers and Government Servants will be eligible for 3.2.1 reward upto 20% of the duty, if any, sought to be evaded plus 20% of the fine and penalty levied/imposed and realised provided the amount does not exceed 20% of the market value of the goods involved.Informers and Government Servants will be eligible for 3.5.1 reward upto 20% of the amount involved in confiscation. When in addition to confiscation or without confiscation a penalty is imposed and realised, 20% of it may also be taken into amount in computing the ceiling." 5.By the impugned order, the second respondent by exercising his powers conferred under the said order of the Government dated 30-3-1985 as well as 5-6-1985 sanctioned a sum of Rs. 25, 000/- as reward amount to the petitioners 2 to 6. 25, 000/- as reward amount to the petitioners 2 to 6. In view of the categorical statement made in para 5 of the counter affidavit of the respondents as well as in the impugned order sanctioning a sum of Rs. 5, 000/- each to the petitioners 2 to 6 in all Rs. 25, 000/- it has to be necessarily held that the petitioners 2 to 6 are informers and they fall within the para 3.1.1 of the Government Order dated 30-3-1985 and they are entitled to the reward amount. Even as per the averments made in the counter affidavit, the value of the goods was Rs. 4, 62, 700/- 20% of the said amount works out to Rs. 92, 540/-. By the impugned order a sum of Rs. 25, 000/- alone was sanctioned as reward amount. It is true that in the Government order in para 4.1 it has been stated that the reward is purely an ex gratia payment which is subject to the guidelines may be granted on the absolute discretion of the authority competent to grant awards and cannot be claimed by any one as a matter of right. As per the said paragraphs it is also stated that in determining the reward which may be granted, the authority competent to grant reward 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 involved in smuggling or their associaties 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 seizure, special initiative, efforts and ingenuity displayed etc. and whether besides the seizure of contraband goods, the owners/organizers/financiers/ racketeers as well as the carriers, have been apprehended or not. When the seizure is made by the officials on information given by the informers, the risk factor undertaken by the informer has to be necessarily taken into account. Correspondingly the extent to which the vigilance of the staff led to seizure, 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 may be relevant. Correspondingly the extent to which the vigilance of the staff led to seizure, 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 may be relevant. On the facts of the case, it is seen that when the petitioners 2 to 6 found some gunny bundles floating on the sea and two persons were struggling for their lives. They have salvaged the bundles and also rescued the two persons. Further more, the petitioners 2 to 6 had not only informed the Customs officials but also rendered assistance in seizure of the said contrabands. The reliance placed on guidelines to be followed by the authorities in arriving at the quantum of the reward amount is with reference to both risk factor faced by the informers as well as the officials in seizure. In this case, there was no risk factor involved in the officials as on information they had gone to the sea and without any risk they had seized the goods with the assistance of the petitioners 2 to 6. The satisfaction as contemplated in para 4.1 of the Government order should be based on the materials and the discretion cannot be arbitrary. Even though in the counter affidavit the guidelines prescribed in para 4.1 of the Government Order is relied upon, I do not find anything to indicate any such application of those guidelines in the impugned order for arriving at a sum of Rs. 25, 000/- towards reward amount only to the petitioners 2 to 6 as against the sum of Rs. 92, 540/-. The risk factor undertaken by the petitioners 2 to 6 and the difficulties experienced by the officials in securing such information and also in seizing the contraband, have not at all been considered by the second respondent. Therefore I have no option but to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order is a non-speaking order and the same has been passed without application of mind in arriving the quantum of Rs. 25, 000/- to petitioners 2 to 6 (Rs. 5, 000/- to each of the petitioners 2 to 6) as against a sum of Rs. 25, 000/- to petitioners 2 to 6 (Rs. 5, 000/- to each of the petitioners 2 to 6) as against a sum of Rs. 92, 540/- when once it has been held that the petitioners 2 to 6 are informers, it must be necessarily be held that the petitioners 2 to 6 are entitled to reward amount of 20% of the value of the goods confiscated. Such quantum shall of course be at the direction of the authorities competent to grant reward. In this case, the discretion has not been properly exercised by the second respondent and no reason has been adduced as to how he arrived at a sum of Rs. 25, 000/- towards reward amount as against a sum of Rs. 92, 540/-. Even as per the guidelines in para 4.1 of the Government Order coupled with the facts of the case, the petitioners 2 to 6 are entitled to the entire 20% of the value of the goods seized. The rejection of the request of the petitioner for 20% of the value of the goods seized cannot be sustained in view of my above discussion. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of the second respondent dated 14-9-1990 sanctioning a sum of Rs. 25, 000/- to the petitioners 2 to 6 (each Rs. 5, 000) is set aside and the petitioners 2 to 6 are entitled to 20% of the total value of the goods seized. However, the order of rejection of the request of the first petitioner for reward amount is held to be justified since he did not in fact salvage the gunny bags and all that has been done by the first petitioner was that he simply passed on the information to the Customs officials as revealed to him by petitioners 2 to 6. In my considered view, the first petitioner cannot be considered, as informer as per para 3.1.1 of the Government Order. In view of the above the petitioners 2 to 6 are entitled to 20% of the amount as directed by the Court. Accordingly the respondents are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 92, 540/- being the 20% of the total value of the goods seized within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The Writ petition is allowed to the above extent. No costs.