9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 554X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty, fine etc. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Letters Patent Appeal No.897 of 2015 Arising out of Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11642 of 2011 Along with Interlocutory Application No.3797 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 17-8-2016 - HEMANT GUPTA AND AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Sachida Nand Kishore Pd. Sinha, Advocate Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Paswan, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Satya Prakash Tripathy, Sr. Standing Counsel For the State : Mr. M. N. H. Khan, S.C.-1 Mr. Md. Irshad, A.C. to S.C. JUDGMENT (Per: Honourable Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta) Re.: Interlocutory Application No.3797 of 2015 The application is for condonation of delay of one day in filing of the present Letters Patent Appeal. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, we find that sufficient cause is made out for condonation of delay. Consequently, we condone the delay in filing of the present Letters Patent Appeal. 3. Interlocutory Application stands allowed accordingly. Re.: Letters Patent Appeal No.897 of 2015 The challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to an order passed by the learned Single Bench on 12th of January ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers to a Division Bench judgment of the Madras High Court since reported as Union of India v. C. Krishna Reddy, 2000 (123) E.L.T. 499 (Mad), to contend that in terms of the guidelines, a right accrues to the appellant for payment of reward money irrespective of the recovery of the demand on the conclusion of the adjudication proceedings. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and find no merit in the present Letters Patent Appeal. The policy of reward appended by the Appellant is Annexure-2 with the writ application whereas the detailed policy circulated on 30th of March, 1985 has been appended by the respondents along with the counter affidavit. The relevant extracts from policy dated 30th of March, 1985 read as under:- 4.1. Reward is purely an ex-gratia payment which, subject to the guidelines may be granted on the absolute discretion of the authority competent to grant rewards and cannot be claimed by anyone as a matter of right. In determining the reward which may be granted, the authority competent to grant reward will keep in mind the specificity and accuracy of the information, the risk and trouble undertaken, the extent and nature of the help rendered by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of such cases and only if the authority competent to sanction the reward is satisfied that the orders are likely to be sustained in appeal/revision proceedings. 8. The Scheme for grant of reward was further modified vide Letter [ F. No. R-13011/6/2001-Cus (AS), dated 20.06.2001]. Para 7.1. read as under:- 7.1 Final rewards, both the officers as well as informers, should be sanctioned and disbursed only after conclusion of adjudication/appeal/revision proceedings. The final reward will be determined on the basis of the net sale proceeds of goods seized/confiscated (if any) and/or the amount of additional duty/fraudulently claimed Drawback recovered plus penalty/fine recovered, and the total reward admissible, i.e., advance and final reward put together, will not exceed the ceiling of 20% of the net sale proceeds (if any) plus amount of additional duty/fine/penalty recovered or the amount of drawback fraudulently claimed recovered, as the case may be. This will also be subject to instructions in para 4.3. above as regards rewards to Govt. Servants is concerned. The advance/interim reward sanctioned and disbursed, if any, shall be adjusted from the final reward to be paid t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lusion of the adjudication proceedings confirming demand and on its realization. Since the Tribunal has set aside the demand, therefore, the appellant cannot claim reward as in law it was found that nothing is payable by M/s. Punjab Fibers Limited. The reward, as per the policy extracted above, is on the successful completion of the adjudication proceedings. Since there was no successful completion, the appellant cannot claim payment of reward money for the reason that his information led to at one stage raising of a demand. 12. The judgment of this Court in Ram Mohan Prasad s case (supra) deals with the promotion granted to an employee with retrospective effect but denied the consequential benefits. The said judgment has no applicability to the facts of the present case as it was found that promotion was denied for no fault of the employee. When the Department has taken steps before an appropriate Forum, including the appeal and review before the Supreme Court, it cannot be said that it was not prosecuting the proceedings diligently. As an informer, the appellant does not sit over the actions of the Department and comment on the actions taken by the Department. That is not the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the part of that 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 exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction. Therefore, in order that a mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that there is a statute which imposes a legal duty and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance. [See Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Coop. Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh, (1977) 4 SCC 145: AIR 1977 SC 2149, AIR para 15, Lekhraj Sathramdas Lalvani v. N.M. Shah, Dy. Custodian cum Managing Officer, AIR 1966 SC 334, and Umakant Saran (Dr.) v. State of Bihar (1973) 1 SCC 485: AIR 1973 SC 964.] 14. By the very nature of things, no one has a legal right to claim a reward. The scheme itself shows that it is purely an ex gratia payment subject to guidelines and may be granted on the absolute discretion of the competent authority and cannot be claimed by anyone as a matter of right. In such circumstances the High Court committed manifest error of law in issuing a writ of man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
