Judgment :- The petitioner, claiming to be an informer to the authorities concerned in respect of the illegal ganja cultivation in Kumbakkallu area in Idukki District, claims a sum of Rs.46 crores as reward. The petitioner claims to be a poor farmer belonging to Baisonvalley village in Idukki District. The case put forward in the Original Petition is that a search was conducted on 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th March, 2002 in Kottakumpur Village, by the Excise Officials of Malappuram, on the information supplied by the petitioner and ganja plants which would yield crop of the value of Rs.70 crores were destroyed by the Excise Officials. In may, in another operation in Kottakumpur village in Idukki District by the State Excise Division of Malappuram, on the information given by the petitioner, ganja plants having a potential yield of ganja worth Rs.60 crores were destroyed. Though it is stated that the operation was in May, the year is not mentioned. Another averment in the Original Petition is that in yet another operation ( the date, month or year is not mentioned in the Original Petition) headed by Smt. Sandhya D.I.G. of Narcotic Cell, Thiruvananthapuram, ganja plants having a potential yield of more that Rs.100 crores were destroyed in various parts of Idukki district. Thus, the petitioner claims that he was responsible for the destruction of ganja plants which would have a potential yield worth Rs.230 crores. Relying on Ext.P8 guidelines, dated 20.6.2001, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, the petitioner contends that he is entitled to the reward mentioned therein, the maximum amount of reward being 20% of the value of the goods. 2. Five sets of counter affidavits have been filed in the case. The fourth respondent (The Superintendent, Narcotic Control Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram) filed counter affidavit dated 6.1.2003, in which it is stated that the petitioner was not an informer at all. In the counter affidavit dated 17.2.2003 filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 3. (Union of India represented by Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of revenue, New Delhi and Narcotic Control Bureau, New Delhi) as well, any complicity of the petitioner as an informer is denied. In the counter affidavit dated 17.2.2003 filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 3. (Union of India represented by Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of revenue, New Delhi and Narcotic Control Bureau, New Delhi) as well, any complicity of the petitioner as an informer is denied. In the counter affidavit dated 22.10.2003, filed on behalf of the second respondent (state of Kerala), it is stated thus: “….It is true that the petitioner was an informant and he had provided nine labours as asked to conduct this operation. But it is not true that he was not paid anything for his services. The petitioner was paid Rs.10,000/- as an informant and Rs.9,000/- towards wages to his nine labourers who participated in the operation. There was no agreement with the petitioner whatsoever, for any reward or monetary consideration for his services…” This admission of the complicity of the petitioner is in respect of the “anti ganja operation” from 17.3.2002 to 21.3.2002. So far as the second operation is concerned, the case of the second respondent is that the petitioner was no way involved as an informer. Nothing is mentioned about the third operation in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent. It is further stated in the counter affidavit of the second respondent thus: “…. A total of Rs.5,23,000 ganja plants, 1200 kgs. of dry ganja, 150 kgs. of ganja powder were destroyed during the raid along with 43 sheds at sites. The value of ganja destroyed was not ascertained…” In the counter affidavit dated 10.1.2005, filed on behalf of respondents 1, 5, 6 and 7, it is stated that the Central Excise Department was not a party to any of the ganja destruction actions mentioned by the petitioner. Exts.R5(a) and R5(b) were produced along with this counter affidavit to show that in January 2001, a ganja destruction action was taken on the information supplied by the petitioner, but they could not locate any ganja cultivation as mentioned by the informer, though the informer and his associates were present at the site. Ext.R5(b) is a letter dated 9.5.2001 to one M.B. Suresh wherein it is stated that the operation for ganja destruction was no successful, since the informer could not identify the place. In Ext.R5(b) it is also stated that the information letter was signed by another person and the identity of the informer is confidential. Ext.R5(b) is a letter dated 9.5.2001 to one M.B. Suresh wherein it is stated that the operation for ganja destruction was no successful, since the informer could not identify the place. In Ext.R5(b) it is also stated that the information letter was signed by another person and the identity of the informer is confidential. The petitioner relies on this statement and contends that the other person mentioned in Ext.R5(b) is none other than himself. The further statement in the counter affidavit on behalf of respondents 1, 5, 6 and 7 is that in the operation on 29th and 30th March, 2003, (after the Original Petition was filed), ganja cultivation spread over sixty six and a half acres and valued at Rs.60 crores was destroyed and that the petitioner had accompanied the Officers in the said operation as a labourer. It is further stated that on previous occasions also, the petitioner had accompanied the officers of the Department as a labaourer on daily wages and that having availed that opportunity, the petitioner stared giving information regarding ganja cultivation subsequently. It is further stated thus: “Hence it is felt that his modus operandi of giving information and then claiming reward is only an attempt to make money by utilizing his experience gained as a labourer when assisting other reliable informants, and that as an informant he is neither to be trusted nor his information considered valuable to be acted upon.” In the statement dated 28.7.2004, filed by the 10th respondent, it is stated thus: “It is respectfully submitted that while I was working as Superintendent of Police, Narcotic & Offences Wing, CB CID, Trivandrum conducted a raid on 5.8.2002 and 6.8.2002 under the supervision of Deputy Inspector General of Police, Crime Investigation, SR, Trivandrum on the basis of an information furnished by the petitioner, at Kambakkal, Kottathambur village in Idukki District. At the time of raid, we are able to confiscate and destroy 60,000 grown up ganja plants and about 10,000 nursery plants of ganja from the aforesaid area…” 3. The petitioner filed three reply affidavits dated 14.1.2004, 8.9.2004 and 9.3.2005 and denied the various allegations made by the respondents in their respective counter affidavits. Along with the reply affidavit dated 9.3.2005, Ext.P16 was produced, which is said to be a letter written and signed by one Thankachan Peter, a reporter of Kairali T.V. and handed over to the petitioner. The petitioner filed three reply affidavits dated 14.1.2004, 8.9.2004 and 9.3.2005 and denied the various allegations made by the respondents in their respective counter affidavits. Along with the reply affidavit dated 9.3.2005, Ext.P16 was produced, which is said to be a letter written and signed by one Thankachan Peter, a reporter of Kairali T.V. and handed over to the petitioner. The petitioner relies on that letter to show that he was the informer mentioned therein. A reading of Ext.P16 would not indicate so; on the other hand, it would indicate that Thankachan Peter was introduced to Jose Thomas, the petitioner, as the informer. Even if it is otherwise, Ext.P16 cannot be relied on at all since it is a self serving document. The petitioner also relies on Ext.P14 produced by him along with the reply affidavit dated 8.9.2004. Ext.P14 is a letter dated 28.9.2002, issued by the Under Secretary to Taxes (G) Department, to the petitioner intimating that at the time of fixing the reward by the Reward Committee, steps would be taken to enable the petitioner to get his appropriate share. 4. Though in the writ petition the petitioner has made a claim for Rs.46 crores and stated that he is even ready to give up rewards in respect of the two searches and seizures out of the three, the reliefs prayed for in the Original Petition are entirely different. The first prayer is to “issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to refer the case to respondents 6 to 8 with all relevant records to adjudicate the matter”. This relief is very vague. Another relief in the Original Petition is for the issue of a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to “ensure that public funds sanctioned by the Central as well as the State Governments in respect of grant of rewards to the informers reaches to the hands of eligible persons only.” Yet another relief prayed for is for the issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the first respondent to “refer the matter to the Central Bureau of Investigation or any other investigating agency in order to unearth the truth as to whether any foul play was conducted by some of the respondents in the matter of sidelining the petitioner and obtaining unreasonable enrichment by misappropriating the allotted public funds.” 5. The claim for reward is based solely on Ext.P8 guidelines issued by the government of India, Ministry of finance, Department of Revenue. Ext.P8 is shown as one intended for Departmental use only. No mention is made in any of the counter affidavits as to whether in the case of destruction of ganja plants, the informer thereof would be entitled to any reward. But on a perusal of the various provisions in Ext.P8, it is clear that the reward is intended to be given only in cases where the contraband goods are seized and those goods are available for disposal, sale or otherwise, where by the State could recover the amounts. In other words, reward is only a portion of the amount so realized by the State. In cases where ganja plants are destroyed, the State would not be able to realize any money as no contraband goods are seized in such operations. In Ext.P8 it is stated thus: “4.1. Informers and Govt. servants will be eligible for reward up to 20% of the net sale-proceeds of the contraband goods seized and /or amount of duty evaded plus amount of fine and penalty levied/imposed and recovered. However, in respect of gold, silver, opium and other narcotic drugs etc. seized under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962/narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, the overall ceiling of reward will be as per specific rates indicated in the Annexure. These ceilings would be subject to periodical revision in the light of the price fluctuations of these items, for which periodical intimations may be sent to the DGRI/DGNCB, who in turn, will send suitable recommendations to the Ministry, for appropriate revision, as and when warranted.” “5.1 Reward is purely and ex-gratia payment which, subject to 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 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 nature of the help rendered by the informer, whether information gives clues to person involved in smuggling, or their associates etc., the risk involved for the Govt. 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 nature of the help rendered by the informer, whether information gives clues to person involved in smuggling, or their associates etc., the risk involved for the Govt. 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.” “7.1 Final rewards, both to officers as well as informers, should be sanctioned and disbursed only after conclusion of adjudication/appeal/ revision proceedings. The final reward will be determined on the basis of the net sale proceeds of goods seized/confiscated (if any) and/or the amount of additional duty/fraudulently claimed drawback recovered plus penalty/fine recovered, and the total reward admissible, i.e., advance and final reward put together, will not exceed the ceiling of 20% of the net sale proceeds (if any) plus amount of additional duty/fine/penalty recovered or the amount of drawback fraudulently claimed recovered, as the case may be. This will also be subject to instructions in para 4.3. above as regards rewards to Govt. Servants is concerned. The advance/interim reward sanctioned and disbursed, if any, shall be adjusted from the final reward to be paid to the officers/informers.” “11. In view of the liberalization of rewards, the Heads of Departments will take special care to ensure that the value of goods fixed at the time of seizure is fully realistic and represents the correct value of the goods seized.” (emphasis supplied) 6. The aforementioned clauses in Ext.P8 would lead only to the conclusion that the reward represents a maximum of 20% of the sale proceeds of the contraband goods seized. In other words, when there is no seizure of contraband goods, there could be no payment of reward. The purpose and intent of Ext.P8 is manifest that when contraband goods are seized and confiscated and the money value of the same is realized by disposal, sale or otherwise, some sort of an ex-gratia payment is made to the informer at whose instance the contraband goods were seized. The purpose and intent of Ext.P8 is manifest that when contraband goods are seized and confiscated and the money value of the same is realized by disposal, sale or otherwise, some sort of an ex-gratia payment is made to the informer at whose instance the contraband goods were seized. Providing reward for informers is an incentive for the hazardous task that would be undertaken by them. If such incentive is not given, other persons would not come forward to help the Officials to make the seizure of the contraband goods involved in various offences. It cannot be said that the information, if any, supplied by the petitioner leading to the seizure of contraband goods was something not good. Certainly it was a service to the nation. Having rendered such service, the question is whether the petitioner could make gain out of it by claiming a huge sum by way of reward. Going by Ext.P8. even an Officer would be able to realize the maximum of Rs.10 lakhs as reward during his entire career as such Officer, even though calculated on the basis of the percentage given in Ext.P8, he would be entitled to crores of rupees as reward. As regards reward in a single case, an individual officer should not be sanctioned, as per Ext.P8, a total reward exceeding Rs.One lakh, except in exceptional cases. Having fixed a ceiling for the Officers, it cannot be said that Ext.P8 is intended as a device to the informers to claim unconscionable amount as reward. An incentive given to the informers cannot be made a tool for making money. That is not the intention of Ext.P8. 7. Annexure to Ext.P8 shows ten items therein, viz., gold, silver, opium, morphine base and its salts, heroin and its salts, cocaine and its salts, hashish, hashishoil, ganja and mandrax tablets. In the Annexure, the “range of illicit prices indicated”, “rate of maximum reward at 20% of illicit prices” and “prescribed purity” are mentioned in three different columns. So far as ganja is concerned, the range of illicit price is shown as Rs.400/- to Rs.500/- and the rate of maximum reward at 20% is shown as Rs.80/- per kg. In the third column. Viz., prescribed purity, it is mentioned that it should be commercially acceptable as ganja”. So far as ganja is concerned, the range of illicit price is shown as Rs.400/- to Rs.500/- and the rate of maximum reward at 20% is shown as Rs.80/- per kg. In the third column. Viz., prescribed purity, it is mentioned that it should be commercially acceptable as ganja”. The only inference that could be drawn from the various provisions of Ext.P8, particularly with reference to the Annexure therein, is that the ganja seized should be commercially acceptable and marketable. The petitioner has valued the ganja at Rs.5,000/- per kg. and calculated his reward at Rs.46 corres, though as per Ext.P8 the amount may be less. For the aforesaid reasons, the claim of the petitioner that he is entitled to get any reward calculated at 20% of the potential value of the ganja plants is quite unacceptable. There could be no such valid claim, going by Ext.P8 guidelines. Whether the government would provide some sort of an incentive to the informers like the petitioner is a different matter. The question is whether a person is entitled as of right to claim certain percentage of the potential value of ganja in respect of the ganja plants destroyed in operations at the instance of the Officials, though the information was supplied by informers. The answer would be definitely in the negative, going by the terms of Ext.P8. 8. The main relief intended by the petitioner (though not so far made clear in the relief portion) is recovery for money. Such a relief cannot be granted in favour of the petitioner. Then the next question is whether the contention of the petitioner that under the guise of distribution of rewards huge amounts are being illegally obtained by various persons at the instance of the Officials of various departments is correct or not. In the reply affidavit dated 9.3.2005, the petitioner has stated that more than Rs.18 lakhs was obtained by one Thankachan Peter @ Kairali Tahankachan with the help of one Mr. Suresh, Preventive Superintendent, Office of the Central Excise Commissioner, central Revenue building, Kochi – 18, in respect of ganja raid conducted on 29.3.2003 and 30.3.2003. the reply affidavit dated 9.3.2005 was filed on 14.3.2005. Non-denial of the averment in this reply affidavit cannot be faulted, since enough time was not available. Suresh, Preventive Superintendent, Office of the Central Excise Commissioner, central Revenue building, Kochi – 18, in respect of ganja raid conducted on 29.3.2003 and 30.3.2003. the reply affidavit dated 9.3.2005 was filed on 14.3.2005. Non-denial of the averment in this reply affidavit cannot be faulted, since enough time was not available. At the same time, regarding the allegation that large scale corruption and diversion of funds under the guise of distribution of reward under Ext.P8 is going on, it is only just and proper to direct the second respondent to look into the allegation that Rs.18 lakhs was paid as reward to Thankachan Peter @ Kairali Thankachan or to any other person in respect of the ganja raid conducted on 29.3.2003 and 30.3.2003 at Kambakkallu area in Idukki district. The petitioner may also approach the second respondent with relevant details as to any payment made as reward to any person on account of the information supplied by anyone of them leading to ganja destruction operations during the period from 2001 onwards in the State of Kerala. To avoid any complaint regarding illegal diversion of funds belonging to the State and to ensure that State funds are not misused under the guise of distribution of rewards, this direction is being issued. Though the relief prayed for by the petitioner for any reward is denied to him and the Original Petition is dismissed to that extent, for the purposes mentioned in the last paragraph of the judgment, there will be a direction as indicated therein.