2010 (12) TMI 1034 - HC - Central Excise

Secret information about evasion of Central Excise Duty - Advance reward of Rs. 2, 00, 000/- was given to the petitioner - final reward was not granted - grant of reward is an an ex gratia payment and there is no vested right in any person to claim a reward as a matter of right - respondents not performing any statutory duty imposed upon them and therefore it cannot be said that there is failure on their part to discharge any statutory obligation warranting exercise of writ jurisdiction to compel performance of such duties prescribed by any statute - policy of reward is only a scheme and not a statute petitioner is estopped from raising the claim as a matter or right appeal dismissed

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner seeking writs of Certiorari and Mandamus, non-payment of reward for providing secret information on evasion of Central Excise Duty, challenge to decision refusing reward, consideration of legal principles and judgments cited, maintainability of petition under Article 227, whether grant of reward is ex gratia, existence of vested right to claim reward, failure to discharge statutory obligation, and the possibility of a writ petition.

Analysis:

1. Facts of the Case: The petitioner provided secret information leading to the recovery of a substantial amount from companies involved in evasion of Central Excise Duty. Despite an advance reward, the final reward was not granted, prompting the petitioner to seek intervention through the court.

2. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the decision to deny the reward was improper, citing violations of rules and guidelines. The petitioner emphasized the significance of the information provided and the subsequent recovery made, asserting a rightful claim to the remaining reward amount.

3. Respondent's Defense: The respondent argued that the reward scheme does not entail a vested right to claim rewards, characterizing it as an ex gratia payment. The respondent highlighted logistical challenges in verifying the informant's identity due to unavailable records and personnel changes over time.

4. Legal Precedents and Analysis: The court referred to various legal judgments, including the distinction between statutory duties and ex gratia payments. It was established that a writ of Mandamus can only be granted for the failure to discharge a statutory obligation, which was not the case in the present scenario.

5. Decision and Rationale: The court concluded that the grant of reward is discretionary and not a statutory duty, precluding the issuance of a writ to compel reward payment. The petitioner's statement indicating a non-assertion of reward as a right further weakened the claim. The court dismissed the petition, citing the absence of a legal basis for the petitioner's demand for the reward.

6. Final Verdict: The court upheld the principle that reward claims are not enforceable as legal rights, emphasizing the discretionary nature of reward schemes. The petitioner's acknowledgment of non-assertion of reward as a right and the absence of statutory duty on the respondent's part led to the dismissal of the petition.

7. Conclusion: The court's decision reaffirmed the non-justiciability of reward claims as legal rights, emphasizing the discretionary nature of reward schemes and the absence of statutory obligations in reward disbursement. The dismissal of the petition highlighted the lack of legal grounds for compelling reward payment through writ jurisdiction.