TMI Blog2003 (12) TMI 55X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... department failed to comply with the aforesaid direction within the stipulated time, it will have to pay the rest of the amount as per the orders of the learned Single Judge. We do not find any justification for passing these kind of peremptory orders. It is not a case of any hardship having been caused like delay in making payment of compensation to victims of an accident or to an agriculturist whose land may have been acquired depriving him of his only source of livelihood. On merits also we are clearly of the opinion that the orders passed by the High Court are not only wholly unwarranted but are also without any legal basis and are consequently liable to be set aside. - 7127 of 1999 - - - Dated:- 18-12-2003 - S. Rajendra Babu and G.P. Mathur, JJ. [Judgment per : G.P. Mathur, J.]. - This appeal by special leave has been preferred by Union of India against the judgment and order dated 22-9-1999 of a Division Bench of Madras High Court in a writ appeal whereby the order passed by a learned Single Judge on 22-9-1998 directing payment of Rs. 25 lakhs in addition to the sum of Rs. 10 lakhs already paid by way of reward for giving information to custom authorities was partly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re initiated for confiscation of the goods. The case was adjudicated by Collector of Customs (Judicial) Madras who passed an order on 5-3-1993 directing for confiscation of the goods with an option for redemption of the same on payment of fine and a penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs was imposed upon M/s. FOMETA and personal penalty was imposed upon some Directors of the company. After the decision of the Commissioner of Customs (Madras) the writ petitioner sent a letter dated 15-4-1993 to the Deputy Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Madras, to sanction him the reward keeping in view the duty, fine and penalty levied in the case. The Department sanctioned an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs on 6-11-1993 as an advance reward which was paid to him and thereafter another sum of Rs. 5 lakhs was sanctioned on 26-4-1995 and in this manner he received only Rs. 10 lakhs. The writ petition was accordingly filed claiming the balance amount of reward in terms of the guidelines issued by the Department. 3.Counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondent was filed by Shri R. Mohan Doss, Assistant Director in the Directorate of Revenue, Intelligence, Madras wherein it is stated that on the basis of the in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. The learned Judge further held that when the writ petitioner passed on the information on a reasonable hope and expectation that he will get the award, the principle of legitimate expectation would come into play and he was entitled to the award. The plea of Union of India that writ petitioner was not entitled to claim the reward as a matter of right since the orders issued by Government in this regard are merely guidelines and do not have any force of law was not accepted. The learned Judge also brushed aside the contention of the appellant that in spite of best efforts the Department had not been able to realise any amount and till such realisation was made it was not possible to give any amount by way of reward. The learned Judge went on to hold that taking in to consideration the fact that the writ petitioner had been paid a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs, he should be paid an additional sum of Rs. 25 lakhs within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The Department was further directed to determine his entitlement of the reward in respect of the balance amount and pass an order with regard to disbursement of the same within three months. 6.The Union of India preferred a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ight, it is necessary to take note of the relevant provisions of the guidelines issued by the Government of India on 30-3-1985 regarding the policy, procedure and orders in respect of grant of rewards to informers and Government servants in case of seizure made and evasion of duty etc. detected under the provisions of the Customs Act, Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, Gold Control Act and Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. Paras 4 and 4.1 of the guidelines read as under :- "4 REWARD SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED AS A MATTER OF ROUTINE 4.1 Reward is purely an ex-gratia payment which subject to the 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 persons involved in smuggling, or their associates, etc; the risk involved for the Government servants in working out the case, the difficulty in securi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... termined 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. It was also held that the question of any vested rights accrued being protected from any subsequent amendments would not arise in such a case and, therefore, the guidelines, as are in force on the date of consideration will really be applicable and relevant. 12.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 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/fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rcumstances the High Court committed manifest error of law in issuing a Writ of Mandamus directing the appellant to pay the amount to the respondent. The Department had already sanctioned Rs. 10 lakhs to the respondent before filing of the writ petition. In para 21 (e) of the counter-affidavit it is averred that except for a single amount of Rs. 2 lakhs towards redemption fine no other amount either by way of custom duty, penalty or redemption fine had been realised by the Department. The imported machinery could not be confiscated or auctioned as the same had been hypothecated to financial institutions from whom the importers had taken loan. In view of the amended policy the entitlement of the respondent, if any, could be a small amount as the Department had been able to realize only Rs. 2 lakhs. This is not a case where some large scale smuggling operations had been brought to light or the identity of some hard core smugglers had been revealed as a result of the information given by the respondent. Yet the learned Single Judge of the High Court issued a writ that apart from Rs. 10 lakhs which had already been paid a further amount of Rs. 25 lakhs should be paid to the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
