2010 (1) TMI 481 - HC - Central Excise

Reward to informer - The short point involved in this petition is that despite certain information furnished by the petitioner, on the basis of which inquiry and investigation was made by the Respondent authorities and actions were taken under the relevant provisions of the Act and still the award/reward has not been given to the petitioner as per the policy of the Central Government. Held that- petitioner failed to discharge initial burden to provide exact detail. Guidelines, policy, circular or notifications not pointed by petitioner. Petition without merit.

Summary

Issues:
Petition under Article 226 for direction to bring original records and grant award reward. Failure to receive award despite providing information. Claim for reward based on promissory estoppel doctrine. Lack of clarity in information supplied by petitioner. Absence of promise by Respondent authorities. Interpretation of relevant judgments.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 seeking a direction for the Respondents to produce all original records related to the information provided and to grant the promised award reward. The core issue was the failure to receive the award despite the information leading to inquiries and actions under the Act.

2. The petitioner's counsel argued that the Respondent authorities, by assuring to consider the request for the award reward, should not have denied the benefit to the petitioner. The petitioner claimed the reward based on the doctrine of promissory estoppel, citing relevant case laws to support the claim.

3. The Court examined the submissions and documents presented. It found the information provided by the petitioner to be vague and general, with no clear promise made by the Respondent authorities. The Respondent's reply indicated that no reward had been granted to any informer previously, casting doubt on the existence of a reward policy. The Court noted that the petitioner failed to provide specific details or terms, and the judgments cited did not support the petitioner's claim.

4. Referring to the case law, the Court highlighted that the decision to grant a reward is within the exclusive domain of the department authorities, and the High Court cannot mandate a specific reward amount. The Court emphasized that no vested rights accrue until a reward is determined and awarded as per existing guidelines and policies.

5. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the petitioner did not identify any specific guidelines, policies, or notifications regarding the reward. By requesting a direction to the Respondent authorities, the petitioner shifted the burden, contrary to the legal principles outlined in the judgments referenced. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petition and discharged the rule without costs.