9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 1034X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibed 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 X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5-1993. Various proceedings were initiated by the Central Excise Department as well as M/s. Viral Laminates, [which being not very relevant to decide the present petition are not discussed in detail] which ultimately culminated in net recovery of Rs. 84,09,162/-. 3. Advance reward of Rs. 2,00,000/- was given to the petitioner on identification made by Shri Y.N. Thakkar, the then Inspector who has been throughout involved in the case. However, in spite of writing as many as 16 letters/reminders to the respondent, final reward was not granted. It is the case of the petitioner that since recovery of Rs. 84,09,162/- have been made on the basis of information filed by the petitioner, reward should have been processed and paid to him in ter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ward is perverse and suffers from obvious and patent error on the face of record. Apart from quoting full text of few judgments in the memo of petition itself, learned advocate for the petitioner has also relied on the following judgments while arguing the matter before us : 1. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore v. Srikumar Agencies reported in 2008 (232) E.L.T. 577 (S.C.) = 2009 (13) S.T.R. 3 (S.C.). 2. Sambhaji v. Gangabai reported in 2009 (240) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.). 3. Union of India v. C. Krishna Reddy reported in 2000 (123) E.L.T. 499 (Mad.). 4. Union of India v. C. Krishna Reddy reported in 2004 (163) E.L.T. 4 (S.C.). 5. Union of India v. C. Krishna Reddy reported in 2004 (167) E.L.T. A65 (S.C.). 6. Amrit Lal Mehta v. D.G. o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e relevant time is unable to identify the informant. Mr. Y.N. Thakkar, who earlier identified the petitioner, was not posted at preventive section of Ahmedabad Commissionerate at the relevant time and his name has also not figured in AE-II report dated 21-5-1993. In these circumstances, the committee consisting of high ranking officers, based on valuation of the committee and after considering various aspects, decided that it is not possible to disburse any more amount to the petitioner. He further submitted that the respondents are not under any obligation to grant/sanction the maximum admissible reward up to 20% of the net sale proceeds of the seized/confiscated goods and/or the amount of additional duty/penalty/redemption fine recovered. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion to grant interest on such ex gratia payment." 9. That apart, the issue involved in the present petition is squarely covered in the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. C. Krishna Reddy reported in 2004 (163) E.L.T. 4 (S.C.). In paragraphs 13 and 14 of the judgment, the Apex Court held as under : "13. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that a Writ of Mandamus can be granted only in case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is failure on the part of the officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief function of the writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers exe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ratia payment and there is no vested right in any person to claim a reward as a matter of right. The respondents in the instant case were 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. The policy of reward is only a 'scheme' and not a 'statute'. 13. Before parting with this order, we may also record that in the secret information filed by the petitioner, he has categorically stated as under: "If deem fit, I may be rewarded suitably, but I shall not claim as a matter of right and shall not enter into correspondence to as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
