2023 (6) TMI 715 - HC - Customs

Quantum of final reward payable to the informer / petitioner - prayer to sanction the maximum limit of the final award to the petitioner - HELD THAT - Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA VERSUS C. KRISHNA REDDY 2003 (12) TMI 55 - SUPREME COURT the contentions on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted - The Supreme Court in the said judgment clearly held that 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 exgratia payment subject to guidelines and may be granted at the absolute discretion of the competent authority and no one can claim the same as a matter of right. In such circumstances a writ of mandamus cannot be issued as it applies only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the officer s part to discharge that obligation. In the absence of anything showing a statutory requirement that imposes a legal duty the writ compelling the authorities to do something cannot be issued. In the absence of any material to show the entitlement of the petitioner to more than what was already paid to him the writ petition should necessarily fail and accordingly the same is dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved: Challenge to denial of final reward to petitioner and sanction of maximum limit of final award based on court judgment.

Issue 1: Denial of final reward to petitioner

The petitioner, an informant on excise duty evasion, sought a reward as per government guidelines. Despite recovering Rs.85 lakh, the petitioner received only an advance reward of Rs.5 lakh, less than 10%. Following a court direction to reconsider the reward, the respondent found the reward amount to be at the discretion of the committee and Collector of Customs. The petitioner challenged this decision, alleging non-compliance with the court judgment.

Issue 2: Sanction of maximum limit of final award

The respondent contended that the decision to deny further reward was in line with government guidelines and the court judgment. The communication to the petitioner conveyed the decision of the Reward Committee, considering all relevant aspects. The respondent argued that the amount of Rs.5 lakh already paid was adequate and final, with reference to the total reward amount of Rs.17 lakh being for determining the sanctioning authority.

Judgment:

After considering arguments and the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India v. C. Krishna Reddy, it was held that no legal right exists to claim a reward, as it is an ex gratia payment subject to guidelines and discretion of the competent authority. As there was no statutory duty imposing a legal obligation, a writ of mandamus could not be issued. Without evidence of entitlement to more than the amount already paid, the writ petition was dismissed.