IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATE : 21.11.2008
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN
W.A. NO. 1053 OF 2001
1. The Union of India
rep. by the Secretary
Revenue Department
North Block, New Delhi 110 001.
2. The Chairman
Central Board of Excise & Customs
North Block, New Delhi 110 001.
3. The Director General
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
7th floor, Drum Shape Building
IP Bhavan, I.P. Estate
New Delhi 110 002.
4. The Collector of Customs
Customs House
Madras 600 001.
5. The Additional Collector of Customs
Customs House
Madras 1.
6. Addl. Director General
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
Madras 17. .. Appellants
- Vs -
1. R.K. Ranganathan
2. K.A.Vijayaraj
Asst. Collector of Customs
No.4, First Lane, Beach Road
Nagapattinam.
3. Elumalai
Preventive Officer
Office of the Collector of Customs
Customs House
Madras 600 001. .. Respondents
Writ Appeal filed against the order dated 8th March, 2001, passed by learned single Judge in W.P. No.16954 of 1993.
For Appellants : Mr. M.Ravindran, ASG, assisted by
Mr. G.K.R.Pandian, SCGSC
For Respondents : Mr. S.Dhayaleshwaran for R-1
JUDGMENT
S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J.
The matter relates to reward payable to informers, who give advance information to Revenue Intelligence of Excise and Customs Department.
The 1st respondent/writ petitioner, preferred writ petition to direct the appellants, who are respondents to the writ petition to pay reward to the respondent/writ petitioner as per circular F. No.R.13011/5/88 ADB dated 7th June, 1988.
Learned Judge, by impugned order dated 8th March, 2001, having allowed the writ petition directing the appellants to pay the reward to the respondent/writ petitioner as per circular dated 7th June, 1988, in and by which a partial modification to annexure to the instructions contained in the letter dated 30th March, 1985 had been made with regard to quantum of reward payable to the informers, the present appeal has been preferred by Union of India and Revenue authorities.
2. In fact, the case is not based on any question on law and is dependent on the question of facts, particularly the question of fact as admitted by parties.
The 1st respondent is a registered informer of the Customs Department. In April, 1991, according to him, he came to know about a smuggling activity to smuggle 99 silver bars into India from Singapore. As per information he received, the smuggled goods were likely to be off-loaded near Tuticorin Port and that he was able to get information about the method to be adopted by persons concerned to smuggle the contraband into India. That, after satisfying himself about the genuineness of the information, he met the 3rd respondent, Preventive Officer, Office of the Collectorate of Customs, Madras (8th respondent to the writ petition) on 7th April, 1991 and informed him that 99 silver bars are likely to be smuggled into India by vessel called ‘AL-KARA’ near Tuticorin Port or its outer anchorage. The 3rd respondent, Preventive Officer, Office of the Collectorate of Customs, Madras, took him to the 2nd respondent, Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs Divisional Office, Nagapattinam (7th respondent to the writ petition), who recorded his detailed and accurate information on 9th April, 1991 and a copy of information recorded was also furnished to him. The 4th appellant, Collector of Customs, Madras, who was the 4th respondent, by his letter dated 9th April, 1991, forwarded the gist of information to the 6th appellant, Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Madras (who was the 6th respondent in the writ petition) for taking necessary action. On 19th April, 1991 , when the respondent contacted the Assistant Collector of Customs, Divisional Office, Nagapattinam and Preventive Officer, Office of Collector of Customs, Madras, he was informed that though the vessel ‘AL-KARA’ was sighted, as per information furnished by the Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Madras, the same could not be intercepted as the vessel was in the mid sea and due to Coast Guard movement the vessel crew got alerted and sailed straight to the Port of Male without off-loading the contraband. The respondent-writ petitioner claims that though he informed that the vessel may discharge the contraband between Sayalkudi and Tiruchendur, when he contacted the Additional Collector of Customs, Madras about whether to contact the Director of Revenue Intelligence, he was advised that such an action may expose his anonymity and, thereby, create great risk to his life.
3. It transpires that, subsequently, on 19th June, 1991, the vessel ‘AL-KARA’ was intercepted by the Coast Guard and on board “Naiki Devi” along with DRI officials. Though, initially the Master of the vessel denied possession of any contraband, but on subsequent questioning, revealed the contraband of 99 silver bars kept in a container near anchor chain room covered by tarpaulin. The manner of concealment tallied with the first information furnished by the respondent/writ petitioner, which was recorded in writing by the respondent, Assistant Collector of Customs, Nagapattinam on 9th April, 1991.
4. It is claimed that thereafter the DRI officers seized the contraband of 99 silver bars and on 20th June, 1991 the respondent/writ petitioner, when came to know of the seizure from the vessel ‘AL-KARA’, he contacted respondents 2 and 3 and requested for payment of reward amount for having furnished accurate and detailed information, which resulted in seizure of contraband, but no action was taken. The respondent/writ petitioner claimed for part payment of the reward amount, i.e., 50% of the total reward amount as per the new guidelines. According to the respondent/writ petitioner, the 4th appellant, Collector of Customs, Madras, wrote a letter on 21st June, 1991 to the 6th appellant, Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Madras, recommending release of reward amount, but there was no response from the 6th appellant. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Ngapattinam, was therefore deputed by the Collector of Customs, Madras, to meet the 6th appellant, Additional Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Madras, but on such meeting the 6th appellant stated to have told the Assistant Collector of Customs, Nagapattinam that information furnished by the respondent/writ petitioner was 100% correct. It was also informed orally by the 6th appellant that apart from the information given by the respondent/writ petitioner, no other information was available in that case. The claim of the respondent/writ petitioner was registered initially when a counter was filed on behalf of the others on 12th Feb., 1997, with additional counter affidavit on 4th July, 1997, sworn by the Assistant Director of the office of the 3rd appellant, Director of Intelligence, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, New Delhi.
5. Before learned single Judge, on behalf of the respondent/writ petitioner, it was pointed out that appellants 3 and 6 having nothing to do with the office of appellants 2, 4 and 5, in absence of any specific counter affidavit filed by those appellants, who are respondents to the writ petition, the stand reflected in their additional counter affidavit cannot be accepted, which is incorrect. Counsel for the petitioner relied on the correspondence exchanged between the parties.
The stand of the appellants, who were respondents before the writ court is that though originally information furnished by respondent/writ petitioner may have some correlation to the seizure effected on 19th June, 1991, according to the 3rd appellant, a senior intelligence officer of Madras, working at Trichy, gathered independent information through one Saravanan a loading agent of Tuticorin and that seizure came to be effected based upon that information gathered by that senior intelligence officer and, therefore the seizure had no nexus with the information furnished by the respondent/writ petitioner in April, 1991.
Similar plea has been taken by the parties before the Appellate Court.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and noticed their relevant contentions and also perused the record.
It is not in dispute that as per the guidelines, relating to grant of reward for information to government servants in case of seizure, dated 30th March, 1985, though at Para 4 (1) of the said guideline, it is stated that the grant of reward cannot be claimed by anyone as a matter of right; but it is not in dispute that a court has jurisdiction to decide whether such discretion has been exercised arbitrarily or in accordance with law. Learned single Judge noticed the admitted position relating to information provided by respondent/writ petitioner on 9th April, 1991, as was recorded by the 2nd respondent, Assistant Collector of Customs, Nagapattinam and subsequent seizure made on 19th June, 1991. The seizure shows that the information tallied with every minute information furnished by the respondent on 9th April, 1991 and having regard to the stand of the 4th appellant as disclosed in various communications addressed to the 3rd appellant that the seizure effected on 19th June, 1991, was solely based on information furnished by the respondent/writ petitioner on 9th April, 1991.
7. The Assistant Collector, Customs Divisional Office, Nagapattinam and Preventive Officer, Office of the Collectorate of Customs, Madras, were the first persons to whom the information was given by the respondent/writ petitioner, who were impleaded as party respondents by name, who have not disputed the fact. The documents are already on record. It has been brought to the notice of the Court that exactly on time the vessel AL-KARA was located in the mid sea, but because of coast guard movement, the vessel crew got alerted and sailed straight to the Port of Male without off-loading the contraband. In such a situation, if the vessel was intercepted after delay of certain days, that will not render the information, correctly given by respondent/writ petitioner, as wrong. It is not in dispute that as per respondent/writ petitioner’s information, 99 silver bars were recovered from the same very vessel AL-KARA in the manner as it was informed. In fact, no document was placed before learned single Judge to show that any information was received prior to receipt of information on 9th April, 1991 from the respondent/writ petitioner, who has given detailed and accurate information, which was forwarded to the 4th appellant by letter dated 9th April, 1991. It has not been disputed that the 4th respondent has not received the said letter dated 9th April, 1991, whereby gist of information was forwarded to him.
8. In the above background, if learned single Judge allowed the writ petition, we find no ground to interfere with the order. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. But there shall be no order as to costs.
GLN
To
1. The Secretary
Revenue Department
Government of India
North Block, New Delhi 110 001.
2. The Chairman
Central Board of Excise & Customs
North Block, New Delhi 110 001.
3. The Director General
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
7th floor, Drum Shape Building
IP Bhavan, I.P. Estate
New Delhi 110 002.
4. The Collector of Customs
Customs House
Madras 600 001.
5. The Additional Collector of Customs
Customs House
Madras 1.
6. Addl. Director General
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
Madras 17