1989 (7) TMI 116 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Entitlement to reward amount under Government of India Notification
- Interpretation of the term "informers" in the notification
- Jurisdiction of the court to issue a Writ of mandamus

Entitlement to Reward Amount:
The petitioners filed a Writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct the respondents to pay them a reward amount of Rs. 4,62,700, which was 20% of the estimated market value of the contraband goods seized. The petitioners salvaged the contraband goods from the sea and handed them over to Customs Officials. They claimed entitlement to the reward amount under various Government notifications related to rewards for informants and government servants.

Interpretation of "Informers" in the Notification:
The court analyzed the Government of India Notification regarding rewards for informants and government servants. The notification specified that informers would be eligible for rewards up to 20% of the estimated market value of the contraband goods seized. The court noted that the intention of the notification was to grant rewards to informers and government servants in cases of seizures made, duty evasion, and other infringements detected under specific acts. The court concluded that the petitioners, in this case, could not be considered informers as they had salvaged the contraband goods themselves and handed them over, rather than providing information to the department leading to the seizure. Therefore, the court dismissed the contention that the petitioners were entitled to the reward amount based on the notification.

Jurisdiction of the Court:
The court further emphasized that in the present case, the petitioners did not provide information that led to the seizure of the contraband goods. Instead, they personally brought the goods to the department from the capsized boat. As a result, the court found that the concept of 'information' was not applicable in this scenario. The court stated that it could not exercise its power under writ jurisdiction as the petitioners did not inform the department leading to the seizure. However, the court suggested that the department could consider paying some amount ex-gratia to the petitioners for their role in handing over the contraband goods. Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition based on the lack of entitlement to the reward amount as per the notification and the absence of a valid claim under writ jurisdiction.