9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 193X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce Rs.1.60 crores vide certificate dated 11th May, 2010. It is prayed that the respondents should be directed to pay the reward @ 20% on the entire duty including penalty and fine. 3. The respondents herein Director General of Revenue Intelligence and Investigation, Chairman, Central Board of Excise and Customs and Union of India have not disputed that they had levied and recovered duty of Rs.1,21,37,611/- and penalty etc. of Rs.2.50 crores pursuant to the assessment/penalty order passed. 4. In order to appreciate the controversy and the contentions raised by the parties, we have to refer to the chequered history and the litigations inter se parties. 5. Vide certificate dated 26th March, 1998, the petitioner was granted interim part reward of Rs.6 lacs. The petitioner in 2003 filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7586/2003 alleging delay and failure on the part of the respondents to make payment of the balance reward. This writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 20th April, 2004. The Division Bench observed that payment of reward was dependent upon actual realisation of dues. It was held that "adjustment" was a method to recover the dues and the Revenue authorities had recovere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Rs.6 lacs+Rs.3.5 lacs) as the reward payable. It was clarified that the dismissal of the appeal before the Supreme Court would not affect the contentions of the parties in this contempt petition. 9. The aforesaid contempt petition being Contempt Case(C) No. 613/2004 was disposed of by a detailed decision dated 8th December, 2005. The Division Bench referred to the reward policy and quoted paragraphs 4.1, 5.1 and 7.1 of the same. For the sake of convenience, these are reproduced below:- "4.1 Informers and Govt. servants will be eligible for reward upto 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 recomm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e could not be denied or refused arbitrarily. Being an ex gratia payment, no right accrues to any one, till it is determined and awarded. The following paragraph from R. Padmanabhan's case (Supra) was quoted:- "8. .....The rewards are also to be and can be "up to 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 refere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o discharge the statutory obligation. The chief function of the writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction. Therefore, in order that a mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that there is a statute which imposes a legal duty and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance. [See Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Coop. Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh, AIR para 15, Lekhraj Sathramdas Lalvani v. N.M. Shah, Dy. Custodian cum Managing Officer and Umakant Saran (Dr.) v. State of Bihar.]" 12. The Division Bench observed that the authority competent to grant the reward has to take a decision regarding entitlement keeping in mind several factors. The courts cannot examine or weigh those factors which are exclusively within the domain of the authorities. It was held that the Supreme Court had declared that no one had a legal right to claim reward particularly when the scheme itself stipulated that the payment was ex gratia and may be granted at the discretion of the competent aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... total quantum of the reward whether lump sump or by reference to percentage of realisations shall have to be taken. That decision is for the present not discernible from the record placed before us but the omission to take a decision does not appear to be either deliberate or contumacious so as to call for any action in contempt. The problem in our opinion lies more with the understanding of the purport of the orders passed by this Court than any wilful neglect or defiance of the directions issued on the subject. It is therefore high time that the respondents take an appropriate decision on the subject to avoid any further procrastination of the matter. 16. In the result, we dispose of this petition with the following directions: (i) The respondents shall quantify the amount payable to the petitioner in terms of the direction issued by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 7586/2003 and the observations made here-in-above within a period of six months from today; (ii) In case, the respondents decide to grant any further amount to the petitioner by way of reward, the amount, so sanctioned, shall be released in his favour without undue delay not later than two months from the date of suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s placed before us copy of the Minutes of the six Reward Committees and we have examined the same. The Reward Committee in its meeting held on 12th August, 1997 had sanctioned advance reward of Rs.6 lacs. It was noticed that under the policy, the petitioner was entitled to reward upto 50% of the amount due to him as appeals were pending. This was an interim award, which was awarded as the information was provided by the petitioner in 1987. It may be noted that till then no amount had been recovered. This interim award does not help the case or submissions made by the petitioner. 16. The second Reward Committee was held on 11th May, 2004, pursuant to the directions issued by the High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7586/2003. The said Reward Committee in the minutes dated 11th May, 2004 has observed:- " Coming to the admissibility of final reward in the impugned case, it is important to note that as per reward policy, reward is purely an ex-gratia payment and as per para 5.1 of the policy, its quantum depends on various factors such as specificity and accuracy of the information, risk and trouble undertaken etc. As already stated, maximum permissible reward in a case is 20% of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... actors and had accordingly sanctioned Rs.6,00,000/-. However, observations of the said Reward Committee have to be read with the directions/observations made by the High Court in W.P. (C) No. 7586/2003, which were modified by the Supreme Court and the directions issued in the contempt proceedings mentioned above. In the third Reward Committee's meeting held on 19th May, 2006, a further reward of Rs.14,00,000/- was sanctioned to the petitioner. This Reward Committee referred to the specificity of the information and the role played by the petitioner as an informer. 21. The next meeting of the Reward Committee was held on 6th November, 2007 but the minutes of the said meeting are signed by members on different dates. This Reward Committee recorded and held:- "5. Pursuant to the said directions, a Reward Committee met on 19.05.2006. The said Reward Committee after taking into consideration the directions of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had observed in its meeting held on 19.05.2006 that "the maximum amount of reward that can be considered in the case in terms of the reward policy on the basis of realisation of Rs.1.21 crores is Rs.24.27 lakhs". The said Reward Committee after conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wn the percentage of the amount to be realised in future in determining the amount of reward to be paid in future in the event of further future recovery." (emphasis supplied) 24. Reading of the aforesaid minutes would show that it was decided that the petitioner should be paid Rs.5 lacs out of Rs.60 lacs, which had been recovered. It was also observed that the information given by the petitioner was of a very generic nature. The Committee over ruled the observations and directions given in the meeting held on 6th November, 2007 that in future the petitioner would be paid 15% of the amount realised. Rs.5 lacs out of Rs.60 lacs works out to 8.33% and is substantially lower than rate of 15% fixed earlier. 25. The last meeting of the Committee was held on 10th March, 2010 and in this meeting Mr. A.C. Buck was also present but as the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence. In this meeting it was held as under: "6. After taking into consideration the foregoing facts, role played by the informer in giving the information of a very generic nature and the fact that a further amount of Rs.160 lakhs has been recovered, on account of penalty amount, since the Reward Committee me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d @ 15% but subsequently held to be generic and not specific and, therefore, the reward was reduced to 8.33% and then 8.28%. The difference in monetary terms in view of the quantum is substantial. It is not as if the Reward Committee in the meeting dated 6th November, 2007 did not know the quantum of penalty and fine. The said amount of Rs.2.5 crores had been already quantified and is mentioned in the first minutes of the meeting of the Reward Committee held on 12th August, 1997. 28. In these circumstances, we pass an order of remit and ask the Reward Committee to consider afresh the rewards awarded vide minutes dated 26th March, 2009 and 10th March, 2010. We are not inclined to pass an order of remit in respect of the meeting held on 6th November, 2007. Percentage and extent of reward, which can be awarded in case of principal amount, i.e., customs duty and the penalty/fine amount can vary and need not be the same. The amount of reward already paid can also be relevant criteria. We do not express any opinion on whether or not reward already sanctioned/paid is sufficient or not. This is for the reward committee to examine. We have merely considered the reasons recorded in the minu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
