Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1900 (RAJ)

A v. Union of India

2006-05-26

DINESH MAHESHWARI, S.N.JHA

body2006
Judgment S.N. Jha, CJ.-This writ petition has been filed in effect and substance for enhancement of the amount of reward. On the basis of confidential information furnished by the petitioner (whose identity has been deliberately withheld allegedly for security reasons), recovery of 366 gold biscuits weighting 42.850 Kgs. was made on 26.06.1992. In terms of the policy of the Government of India the informers as well as the officials are given reward upto twenty percent of the value of the estimated market value of the contraband goods. The petitioner was paid Rs. five lacs in two installments. Not satisfied he made representations and finally filed this writ petition. During pendency of the writ petition, by order dated 111.2005 a direction was issued to the Central Board of Excise and Customs to take a decision on the petitioners claim. On 212.2005 the claim was rejected. The petitioner thereafter filed amended writ petition for quashing the said order dated 212.2005 while reiterating his claim for enhancement of the reward money. 2. Basis facts of the case are not in dispute and on the basis of the admitted facts it was submitted by Shri P.S. Bhati on behalf of the petitioner that the only ground on which the authorities rejected the claim is that there was no provision for review of the decision which is not correct in view of Paragraph 9 of the policy decision contained in circular dated 20.06.2001. Counsel further submitted that from the reply of the respondents itself it would appear that a high level committee consisting of Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Jaipur II, Commissioner, Preventive Operations, New Delhi and Additional Commissioner, Customs, Jodhpur considered the claim of the petitioner for enhancement of the reward money and recommended that he be paid a further amount of Rs. ten lacs i.e. Rs. fifteen lacs in all. The rejection of the claim is, therefore, arbitrary and the impugned order dated 212.2005 is fit to be struck down with a direction that the petitioner be paid further reward. According to the Counsel as per annexure to the circular, the petitioner is entitled to reward at the rate of Rs. 500/-per ten grams, and for recovery of 42.850 Kgs, thus he should be paid Rs. 20,42,500/-. 3. According to the Counsel as per annexure to the circular, the petitioner is entitled to reward at the rate of Rs. 500/-per ten grams, and for recovery of 42.850 Kgs, thus he should be paid Rs. 20,42,500/-. 3. On behalf of the respondents it was submitted that the case of the petitioner is based on the circular dated 20.06.2001 whereas the recovery was made in the year 1992 and his case, therefore, had to be considered in terms of the circular dated 30.03.1985. The said circular does not provide for review and that is how the petitioners claim was rejected on that ground. Counsel submitted that from a reading of the circular dated 30.03.1985 it would be evident that the reward is ex gratia payment and quantification thereof is matter of discretion of the authority which is not justiciable under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In support of his submissions Counsel placed reliance on Union of India vs. R. Padmanabhan, 2003 (7) SCC 270 and Union of India & Ors vs. C. Krishna Reddy, 2003 (12) SCC 627 . 4. After hearing Counsel for the parties and perusing the records, including the circular dated 30.03.1985, we find the stand of the respondents to be well founded and in accordance with law. The circular dated 30.03.1985 inter alia provided as under: “1. Informers and Government servant 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 ceiling for rewards (based on broadly 20% of the value of these items, as reckoned by the Government for the present) are shown in the annexure. These would be subject to periodical revision in the light of 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. ........... ............ ................ 1. In case of seizures of gold bullion, the overall ceiling for rewards to informers and Government servants will be as indicated in Serial No. 1 of the annexure. ............ ............. . ........... 1. Reward is made purely an ex gratia payment which, subject to guidelines may be granted at the absolute discretion of the authority competent to grant rewards and cannot be claimed by anyone as a matter of right. ............ ............. . ........... 1. Reward is made purely an ex gratia payment which, subject to guidelines may be granted at 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 specificity and accuracy of the information, the risk and trouble undertaken, the extent and nature of the held rendered by the informer, whether information gives clues to persons involved in smuggling, or their association etc.; the risk involved for the Government servants in working out the case, the difficulty in accruing 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 seizure of contraband goods, the owners/organizers/racketeers as well as the carriers have been apprehended or not.” 5. In Union of India vs. R.Padmanabhan (Supra), after noticing the aforesaid portions of the circular, the Supreme Court summed the position in these words: “The rewards are also to be and can be "upto 20%" or as the case may be and not that invariably it must be as a rule 20% of the estimated market value. Reward is purely an ex-gratia payment, subject to the guidelines on the discretion of the competent authority, though it cannot arbitrarily be denied or refused at whim or fancy and it should specifically conform with and must be shown to fall or be claimed within the four corners of the Scheme and not by any deviation or modulation of the Scheme, as the Courts think it should be and if it cannot come strictly within the four corners of it, such claim may have to be dealt with only under the residuary powers enabling the grant of reward. That apart, being ex gratia, no right accrues to any sum as such till it is determined and awarded and, in such cases, normally it should not only be in terms of the guidelines and policy in force, as on the date of consideration and actual grant but has to be necessarily with reference to any indications contained in this regard in the scheme itself .” 6. InUnion of India vs. C. Krishan Reddy (Supra), dealing with similar claim the Supreme Court observed : “The scheme or the policy of the Government of India dated 30.03.1985 shows that the authority competent to grant the reward, while taking a decision regarding the entitlement of the person concerned has to keep many factors in his mind like 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 of the persons involved in smuggling or their associates, the difficulty in securing the information, the risk involved for the Government servants in working out the case and whether apart from seizure of contraband goods, the owners/ organisers/financiers/racketeers have been apprehended. The scheme further mentions that reward is an ex-gratia payment and subject to the guidelines and may be granted on the absolute discretion of the competent authority and further that no one can claim the reward as a matter of right. The High Court in writ jurisdiction cannot examine or weigh the various factors which have to be taken into consideration while deciding a claim regarding grant of reward. These are matters exclusively within the domain of the authorities of the department as they alone can weigh and examine the usefulness or otherwise of the information given by the informer...... If the grant of reward cannot be claimed as a matter of right, it is not understandable as to how a writ of mandamus can be issued commanding the Government to give a particular amount by way of reward...... By the very nature of things, no one has a legal right to claim a reward. The scheme itself shows that it is purely an ex-gratia payment subject to guidelines and may be granted on the absolute discretion of the competent authority and cannot be claimed by anyone as a matter of right.” 7. On a plain reading of the aforequoted portions of the circular dated 30.08.1985 and the observations of the Supreme Court it is evident that assessment of reward money is a matter of discretion and the claimant cannot question the quantum nor seek mandamus to give a particular amount as reward. On a plain reading of the aforequoted portions of the circular dated 30.08.1985 and the observations of the Supreme Court it is evident that assessment of reward money is a matter of discretion and the claimant cannot question the quantum nor seek mandamus to give a particular amount as reward. The rates shown in the annexure-relied upon by the petitioners Counsel are the maximum, and it is for the competent authority to quantity the reward having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. It was submitted that where the exercise of power is discretionary the decision of the authority should not be arbitrary or capricious. The point is whether quantification of reward money in the instant case is arbitrary or capricious so as to warrant interference. 9. In the case of R. Padmanabhan (Supra), 1600 gold biscuits worth Rs. 3.5 crores had been recovered. The authorities paid Rs. 1.25 lacs as reward to the respondent. Treating the case as a "special case" and taking into account the intervening delay, the Supreme Court "in order to give a quietus to the problem" enhanced the amount to Rs. 2.50 lacs. Such enhancement was clearly in exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 142 of the Constitution. The case of C. Krishna Reddy (Supra), was of evasion of custom duty to the tune of Rs. three crores on which reward of Rs. five lacs was paid and the Supreme Court declined to interfere. In the instant case, on the own saying of the petitioner, the market value of 366 gold biscuits was Rs. two crores. If on recovery of 1600 gold biscuits worth Rs. 3.5 crores the Supreme Court considered the reward of Rs. 2.50 lacs as appropriate, treating it as a special case and taking into account the intervening delay, and likewise, reward of Rs. five lacs on evasion of custom duty of Rs. three crores was not interfered with, we do not think, reward of Rs. five lacs for recovery of gold biscuits worth Rs. two crores can be said to be inadequate or arbitrary. Indeed, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, it is not open to the petitioner to question the quantification and seek a mandamus. 10. As regards the power of review it is not in dispute that there was no such provision in the circular dated 30.03.1985. two crores can be said to be inadequate or arbitrary. Indeed, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, it is not open to the petitioner to question the quantification and seek a mandamus. 10. As regards the power of review it is not in dispute that there was no such provision in the circular dated 30.03.1985. Even if the circular dated 20.06.2001 were applicable, we do not think, petitioner can claim any right for review of the earlier decision and enhancement of the amount. Paragraph 9 of the circular to which reference was made lays down : “Final reward sanctioned by the duly constituted reward sanctioning authority/ committee shall not be reviewed or reopened. However, in most exceptional cases, where DGRI, DGCEI, or the Chief Commissioner, as the case may be, is satisfied that the review of the final reward sanctioned by the competent authority is absolutely necessary to redress any grave injustice meted out to the Informer/Government Servant and make a recommendation to the Board to this effect, the Government may review the final reward sanctioned on the specific recommendations of the Board.” 11. It is evident from a bare reading of Paragraph 9 that the reward finally sanctioned by the competent authority, firstly, cannot be reviewed or reopened. In "most exceptional cases" if the authorities are so satisfied that it is "absolutely necessary" to redress any "grave injustice", they may recommend enhancement. Where such recommendation is made, it is for Government to take the decision. It need hardly be emphasised that recommendation is not binding on the competent authority. The authority in the instant case is the Government of India. The recommendation of the so called high level committee is of little avail to the petitioner. 12. All said and done, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court the petitioner does not have any justiciable claim for enhancement of the reward. The writ petition is totally misconceived and it is accordingly dismissed.