9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (4) TMI 276X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rders, there was a discretion vested in the Collector to grant rewards to informers upto Rs. 15/- per tola of gold and upto 10% of the estimated market value in India of the confiscated goods at the time of seizure. The petitioner could, therefore, be awarded an amount upto Rs. 6 lakhs for the gold seized. The value of the contraband goods seized was claimed to be over Rs. one crore. The petitioner was, however, awarded only Rs. 25,000/- as stated above, without any action being taken to award further amounts. Petitioner made frequent appeals to the respondents to make payment of a higher amount by way of reward, and in the absence of any compliance, a lawyer notice was sent. There was a reply stating that there was no statutory right for reward and that the amount of Rs. 25,000/- already paid was adequate. The petitioner challenged the rejection of his claim by filing writ petition O.P. No. 9014/82 in this court. The claim was countered by the respondents with the plea that there was a discrepancy in the information furnished by the petitioner, in that the vessel involved was not Saraswathy as informed by him, but Anwar . Paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit filed in O.P. No. 9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l No. 355 of 1984, which was disposed of by the learned Chief Justice sitting with Sukumaran, J. The Division Bench agreed with M.P. Menon, J. in inholding that the information furnished by the petitioner was substantial and that it was that information that led to the seizure of the contraband goods in question. The Division Bench observed as follows :- It is not possible to agree with the learned counsel for the appellants that the discrepancy in regard to the name of the vessel is of such a character as to disentitle the first respondent from receiving the reward in accordance with standing order 48/70. All other information furnished by the first respondent has been found to be accurate and it was on account of the information furnished by the first respondent that the authorities requisitioned the Indian Navy Vessel and were ultimately successful in seizing the vessel and the contraband goods in question. The date on which the vessel arrived the place where the vessel arrived as also the nature of the contraband goods that were being smuggled are consistent with the information which the first respondent has furnished. The learned Single Judge was therefore, justified in d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lows :- The quantum of reward has to be related to the nature of information, and factors such as accuracy, utility, difficulty in obtaining on information from other sources, have to be taken into account. Special consideration has to be given to the informers antecedents and the risk to which he is exposed. Further, the maximum reward rate cannot be given as a matter of routine, but on merits of each case, the amount of reward would also depend upon the nature of information, whether specific or otherwise and whether the information gives clues to persons involved in smuggling or their associates. Shri Govinda Pillai was never known to the department earlier nor did he supply any information subsequently. As briefly discussed, he did not risk himself in obtaining the information nor did he help the department in any post-seizure operations. Shri Govinda Pillai knew and spoke of only Velayudhan and his craft Fate Muberack renamed Saraswathy and of one else. But the seizure was effected from Anwar which had nothing to do with Velayudhan. Shri Velayudhan was reportedly under detention in Muscat jail at this relevant time. The informant had not taken any risk in collecting e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n a proper application of the mind to relevant facts and circumstances has to be treated as no exercise of the discretion at all. The fact that the authority acted in good faith will not alter the position. The fact that the seizure of such a large haul of contraband goods was made on information furnished by the petitioner should certainly be a very important relevant factor in deciding this question. When the maximum amount liable to be granted as reward is about Rs. 10 lakhs and when it has been found by this court that it was the information furnished by the petitioner that led to the seizure, it requires very convincing material to reduce the amount of the award to a comparative pittance of Rs. 27,500/-. It cannot be gainsaid that a various factors, as stated in the counter-affidavit, do go into the reckoning of the quantum of the reward, but the source of information which originated the proceedings, set them in motion, and which led to the seizure, cannot be brushed aside as of practically no importance in the seizure. It is worthy of note that but for the information furnished by the petitioner, the seizure of such a huge quantity of contraband goods would not have been eff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... must act reasonably. The last proposition is involved in the second, if not in the first. (underlining imine) The reward in question is no doubt made, based on administrative orders. But then, the factors governing the actual award should be founded on reason and sound judgment, without ignoring relevant material. The exercise of the discretion should lead to an inference of application of mind to matters relevant. 11. I therefore hold that the Collector has not, in making the award in question, properly considered the various circumstances which are relevant in the context of making the award. There has been no proper application of the mind to the relative merits, or importance of the various factors and circumstances. The award made appears to be trivial compared to the substantial haul that has been made, because of the section initiated on the information given by the petitioner. 12. I quash Ext. P5 and direct the second respondent to consider the matter afresh in the light of the observations contained in this judgment and in the judgments in O.P. No. 9014 of 1982 and Writ Appeal No. 355 of 1984. The second respondent will also keep in mind the fact that over 19 years ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
