9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 285X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ealed 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 pervers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rector of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Mumbai Zonal Unit. The relevant part thereof reads as follows : "3.1 ... ... ... ... The said Committee noted inter alia 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. 3.2 Noting the procedural lapses, the above Committee concluded inter alia that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been followed in a judgment of a Division Bench of this High Court in Mr.X Vs. DGCEI, Mumbai - 2012(282)-E.L.T. 363 (Bom.). 4. On the basis of the reasons which have been furnished in the impugned communication, it is evident that the claim of the Petitioners was duly considered by the competent authority. The reasons which weighed with the authority in declining to grant the reward, cannot be re-appreciated by substituting the opinion of the Court for that of the authority, which has been vested with the jurisdiction to consider cases for the grant of rewards to informers. The reasons which have been extracted earlier cannot be regarded as being extraneous or suffering from any perversity. 5. In this view of the matter, we do not find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
