9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Petitioner seeking mandamus for full reward amount with interest as per Reward Policy dated 30-3-1985. Respondent denying full reward based on policy requiring actual realization of dues before payment. Interpretation of Supreme Court judgment on writ jurisdiction for reward claims. Discrepancy between Supreme Court rulings on informant's claim basis. Respondent's argument against immediate payment despite admission of recovery from informant's information. Analysis: The petitioner approached the court seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to grant the full reward amount of Rs. 68,27,522/- with interest as per the Reward Policy dated 30-3-1985. The petitioner provided crucial information to the Collector of Customs regarding smuggling activities by a specific entity, leading to the discovery of evasion of customs duty. The respondent admitted in an affidavit that the petitioner's information resulted in the discovery of unauthorized consignments and evasion attempts. However, the respondent cited the Reward Policy, stating that full reward could only be granted after the conclusion of appeal/revision proceedings and actual realization of dues. The court noted that the respondent had adjusted a substantial amount towards recovery based on the petitioner's information, even though it was not received in cash from the liable party. The court referenced a Supreme Court judgment highlighting the department's discretion in assessing reward claims and the need for informants to substantiate their claims. However, in this case, the respondent admitted the petitioner's information led to recovery, contradicting the Supreme Court's stance on informant's basis for claim. The court emphasized that the respondent's argument against immediate payment due to non-cash recovery was unfair, especially when the amount had been realized through adjustments. The court directed the respondent to pay the final reward amount within 15 days as per the policy, with interest at 15% per annum if delayed, and additional interest to be borne by the responsible officer for inaction. The petition was allowed, with costs quantified at Rs. 10,000 to be deposited within two weeks.
|
