LexUNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus C. KRISHNA REDDY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. C. KRISHNA REDDY DECEMBER 18, 2003 [S. RAJENDRA BABU AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.] Customs Act, 1962-Grant of Reward to informers-Guidelines dated 30.3.1985-Amended Guidelines dated 30.3.1989-Proceedings initiated C for evasion of customs duty on infc:·mation of respondent-Respondent claimed Rs. 1,71,43,272 as reward, however, Rs. 10 Lakh sanctioned by department-Writ petition filed in High Court-Single Judge directed additional payment of Rs. 25 Lakhs to respondent and consider payment of balance amount-Division Bench modified order and directed payment D of Rs. 10 Lakhs instead of Rs. 25 Lakhs-On appeal Held, decision on entitlement of reward, which is ex-gratia in nature, subject to guidelines and absolute discretion of competent authority-Department alone can weigh and examine usefulness of given information-No One can claim reward as a matter of right-Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944---Gold Control Act-Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. E Constitution of India-Article 226-Writ of Mandamus- Maintainability of writ for grant of reward-held, grant of reward cannot be claimed as a matter of right as it is purely ex-gratia payment-No statutory duty imposed upon officer concerned and no failure to discharge F statutory obligation-Hence Writ not maintainable. The Department of Customs and Central Excise initiated pro- ceedings for evasion of Customs duty amounting to approximately Rs. 3 Crores on the ba!iis of information given by the respondent. A duty G of Rs. 3.37 Crores apart from redemption fine of Rs. 3.80 Crores and penalty of Rs. 1.55 Crores was levied. However, the department could only realise Rs. 2 Lakhs towards the same due to various constraints. The respondent claimed Rs. 1,71,43,272 by way of reward and the department sanctioned only Rs. 10 Lakhs. Respondent filed a writ H petition in the High Court claiming the balance amount. Single Judge 1084 U.0.1. v. C.K. REDDY 1085 directed the department to pay an additional sum of Rs. 25 Lakhs A and consider payment of the balance amount. In writ appeal Division Bench modified the order directing payment of Rs. 10 Lakhs instead of Rs. 25 Lakhs, and if not made within the time granted it would amount to revival of the order of the Single Judge. Hence these appeals. B Appellants contended that guidelines regarding payment of award dated 30.3.1985 stood amended since 30.3.1989; that since the matter was decided subsequent to the amendment, guidelines as amended on 30.3.1989 would apply; and that as the reward is purely on ex-gratia C payment subject to guidelines and discretion of the competent author- ity, no writ of mandamus would be maintainable. Respondents contended that they have uniformly followed guide- lines as on 30.3.1985 and there is no reason to depart from the same; D and that revised guidelines dated 30.3.1989 cannot be given retrospec- tive operation. Allowing the appeal filed by the Union of India and dismissing the · · appeal filed by the informant, the Court E HELD : 1. The scheme or the policy of the Government of India dated 30.3.1985 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 F 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/orgnisers/financiers/ G racketeers have been apprehended. The scheme further mentions that reward is an ex-gratia payment anrl subject to the guidelines and granted on the absolute discretion of the authority competent and further that no one can claim the reward as ~ matter of right. High Court in writ jurisdiction cannot examine or weigh the various _factors H 1086 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 6 S.C.R. A 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 B right
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.