2013 (2) TMI 285 - HC - Customs

Reward to Informer - Claim to the grant of a reward rejected on procedural lapses - First Petitioner, a Deputy Director in the Mumbai Zonal office of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence retired on superannuation upon information furnished by the Second Petitioner(informer) furnished information in regard to under valuation of thoroughbred mares/horses imported into India - Held that - The information recorded in the case by Shri P C K Nair, the then Assistant Director, DRI, Mumbai, is undated, no DRI 1 appears to have been prepared and there is no evidence of DRI 1 having been dispatched to DRI headquarters, which is mandatory, the sealed cover said to contain the original information was delivered to the Custodian of the sealed envelope on 2.12.2002, whereas the first note in the case file is recorded, following the receipt of the information on 30.9.2002. As decided in Union of India Vs. C. Krishna Reddy 2003 (12) TMI 55 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA scheme mentions that reward is an exgratia payment and subject to the guidelines and may be granted on the absolute discretion of the authority competent and further that no one can claim the reward as a matter of right. Thus claim of the Petitioners was duly considered by the competent authority thus the reasons which have been extracted earlier cannot be regarded as being extraneous or suffering from any perversity - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to rejection of reward claim by Apex Reward Committee.

Analysis:
The case involves a challenge by the First Petitioner, a retired Deputy Director, and the Second Petitioner, an informer, against the decision of the Apex Reward Committee rejecting their claim for a reward. The Petitioners alleged that the information provided by the Second Petitioner led to actions against under-valuation of thoroughbred mares/horses imported into India. The Committee, comprising senior officials, rejected the claim citing procedural lapses, including the absence of a valid DRI 1 record, which is essential for granting rewards to informers. The communication from the Additional Director outlined these lapses, leading to the rejection of the proposal.

The judgment highlighted that the grant of a reward to informers is not an automatic entitlement but falls under the discretionary power of competent authorities. Citing a Supreme Court ruling, it emphasized that the decision to grant rewards is solely within the department's purview, and courts cannot interfere in such matters. The judgment also referred to a Division Bench ruling reinforcing the discretionary nature of reward grants. It reiterated that courts cannot substitute their views for those of the competent authority tasked with evaluating informer claims.

Ultimately, the Court found that the competent authority had duly considered the Petitioners' claim and provided valid reasons for rejecting the reward request. The judgment emphasized that the Court cannot reevaluate the authority's decision or impose its opinion on reward matters. Concluding that the reasons for denial were not arbitrary or irrelevant, the Court dismissed the petition without imposing any costs.