IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
L.P.A. No.164 of 2005
Date of decision:05. 02.2009
Union of India and another .....Appellants
versus
Krishan Gopal Dhawan ....Respondent
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.BHALLA
Present: None for the appellants.
Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Advocate for the respondent.
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to
seek the Judgment? Yes.
2. To be referred to the reporters or not? Yes.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? Yes.
M.M.KUMAR, J.
This appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent, is
directed against judgment dated 27.04.2005 passed by the learned Single
Judge of this Court rendered in C.W.P. No.1547 of 1999. The learned
Single Judge has allowed the prayer of the petitioner-respondent and has
issued directions to the appellant that the petitioner-respondent be
rewarded 20% of the total amount of the contraband items seized by him
in pursuance of the policy instructions dated 30.03.1985.
Brief facts of the case are that on the information supplied by
the petitioner-respondent, 245 gold biscuits were seized by the Custom
L.P.A. No.164 of 2005 -2-
and Police Department on 17.01.1994. Even the smugglers were
arrested. In pursuance of the policy instructions dated 30.03.1985, the
revenue accorded sanction for rewarding the petitioner-respondent a sum
of Rs.7,14,000/- and the same was paid to him on 30.05.1994. The
petitioner-respondent was further informed that the final reward would
be paid to him only after the case had been finally adjudicated upon by
the competent authority. Thereafter, a further sum of Rs.3,00,000/- has
been sanctioned and paid to the petitioner-respondent.
The petitioner-respondent did not feel satisfied with the reward
money paid to him and continued making representations to the
appellant claiming that as per paragraph 3.1.1 of the Government
instructions dated 30.03.1985 (P-1), he was entitled to the reward money
of upto 20% of the market value of the contrabands involved and that he
had received only a paltry amount. Eventually, the petitioner-respondent
issued a legal notice through his counsel which did not elicit any
response which led to the filing of C.W.P. No.1547 of 1999 before this
Court.
After taking into account the written statement filed by the
appellant and weighing the rival contention, the learned Single Judge felt
persuaded to take the view that although according to para 3.1.1 of the
instructions, the maximum reward money could be 20% yet according to
para 4.1 if the amount lesser than the 20% was to be paid then some
reason must be spelt out by the competent authority at a stage prior to
the payment of the reward. The learned Single Judge then proceeded to
L.P.A. No.164 of 2005 -3-
notice para 9 of the written statement and observed as under :-
“It is indeed surprising that the
respondents, while accepting the information given
by the petitioner, leading to the recovery, have held
that the competent authority was of the opinion that
only vague information had been supplied by the
petitioner and that he had himself not come forward
to apprehend the culprits and was therefore not
entitled to the full reward amount. I, however, find
that the reasons given in Paragraph 9 of the written
statement are clearly irrelevant and an after thought.
To say that the information given by the petitioner
was vague, is to say the least clearly unacceptable.
Moreover, it would be evident from the instructions,
Annexure P-1, that the reward has to be given to an
informer leading to the recovery of contraband and it
is not the requirement of the instructions that he
should participate in the apprehension of the
smugglers, which was clearly the duty of the
employees of the department.
I had, at one stage toyed with the idea of
remitting the matter to the department for
reconsideration but in the light of the fact that the
department had taken a firm stand in the written
statement, challenging the petitioner’s claim, it
would be futile exercise to do so. ”
L.P.A. No.164 of 2005 -4-
We have perused the pleading of the parties and have
examined the view taken by the learned Single Judge. After close
scrutiny, we have reached the conclusion that the view taken by the
learned Single Judge does not merit acceptance because the matter is no
longer res integra. In the case of Union of India v. C. Krishna Reddy-
(2003) 12 SCC 627, the policy instructions dated 30.03.1985 were
considered. The instructions have been revised on 30.03.1989. On
17.01.1994, the information was supplied by the petitioner-respondent to
the appellant-department, therefore, the revised instructions would
govern the issue. It is pertinent to notice that paras 4 and 4.1 of the
instructions in categorical terms clarifies that the reward is purely ex-
gratia payment which subject to the guidelines, may be awarded on the
absolute discretion of the authority. Paras 4 and 4.1 of the policy
instructions read as under :-
“4. Reward should not be granted as a matter
of routine.
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 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 the
informer, whether information gives clues to persons
involved in smuggling, or their associates, etc. the
L.P.A. No.164 of 2005 -5-risk involved for the Government servants in
working out the case, the difficulty in securing the
information, the extent to which the vigilance of the
staff led to the seizure special initiative efforts and
ingenuity displayed etc. and whether, besides the
seizures of contraband goods, the
owners/organisers/financers/racketeers as well as the
carriers have been apprehended or not. “
The aforesaid guidelines were reviewed and modified on
30.03.1989 , which provided ‘that final reward should be paid only after
actual realization of the Central Excise duty/customs/penalty/fine etc.’
After noticing the aforementioned paras of the policy
instructions, Hon’ble the Supreme Court in C.Krishna Reddy’ case held
that many factors have to be taken into account by the competent
authority before announcing the reward. It further held that the factors
like specificity and accuracy of the information, the risk and trouble
undertaken, the extent or the nature of help rendered by the informer,
whether information gives clues of the person involved in smuggling or
their associates, the difficulty in securing the information, the risk
involved for the Government servants in working out the case and
whether apart from seizure of the contraband goods, the
owners/organisers/financers/racketeers have been apprehended. The
Supreme Court went on to observe in para 12 as under :-
“The High Court in writ jurisdiction
cannot examine or weigh the various factors which
have to be taken into consideration while deciding a
L.P.A. No.164 of 2005 -6 –claim regarding grant of reward. These are matters
exclusively within the domain of the authorities of
the Department as they alone can weigh and examine
the usefulness or otherwise of the information given
by the informer. In the writ petition filed by the
respondent, no details had been given on the relevant
issues. If the grant of reward cannot be claimed as a
mater of right it is not understandable as to how a
writ of mandamus can be issued commanding the
Government to give a particular amount by way of
reward. ……………”
Hon’ble the Supreme Court further held that a writ of
mandamus can only be granted in a case where there is a statutory duty
imposed upon the officer concerned and failure on the part of that officer
to discharge the statutory obligation. Therefore, it is required to be
shown that a statute imposes a legal duty and the aggrieved party has a
legal right under the statute to enforce its performance. The Supreme
Court relied upon its earlier judgments rendered in the cases of Bihar
Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi
Singh, AIR 1977 SC 2149; Lekhraj Satram Dass Lalvanai v.
Deputy Custodian-cum-Managing Officer, AIR 1966 SC 334 and
Dr. Umakant Saran v. State of Bihar, AIR 1973 SC 964.
The principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in C.
Krishna Reddy’s case when applied to the facts of the present case would
show that no direction could be issued to the appellant for rewarding the
full amount because the appellant has taken a categorical stand in para 9
L.P.A. No.164 of 2005 -7-
of the written statement that the petitioner-respondent was not entitled to
any other relief as sufficient amount of over Rs.10 lakhs was rewarded
for a vague information supplied by him. The further stand of the
appellant in the written statement was that the petitioner-respondent did
not come forward to apprehend the culprits nor his life was put to risk by
the appellant-department. Therefore, we are of the considered view that
the learned Single Judge committed error in law by issuing directions to
the appellant because no mandamus could be issued on the basis of
instructions dated 30.03.1985 as revised on 30.03.1989. Secondly, the
revised instructions have not been considered by the learned Single
Judge and thirdly, the reasons recorded by the officers of the appellant-
department for announcing the award limiting the same to a particular
sum could not be subjected to judicial review. Therefore, the appeal
merits acceptance. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the
petitioner-respondent is liable to be dismissed.
For the reasons aforementioned, the judgment of the learned
Single Judge dated 27.04.2005 is hereby set aside and the writ petition
filed by the petitioner-respondent is dismissed.
(M.M.KUMAR)
JUDGE
(H.S.BHALLA)
JUDGE
05.02.2009
sanjeev