2003 Supreme(SC) 1310

2003(8) Supreme 914
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Madras High Court)
S. Rajendra Babu & G.P. Mathur, JJ.
Union of India -Appellant
versus
C. Krishna Reddy -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 7127 of 1999
With
CA No. 877 of 2000
Decided on 18-12-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : N.K. Bajpai, Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, B.K. Prasad, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Mr. K. Amareswari, Sr. Advocate, S. Sadasiva Reddy, Ms. S. Usha Reddy, D.N. Mehta, R.C. Mishra and Dr. Meera Agarwal, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
As the grant of reward cannot be claimed as a matter of right, a Writ of Mandamus cannot be issued commanding the Government to give a particular amount by way of reward.

Headnote:Constitution of India-Article 226 -Writ of Mandamus-Maintainability-Respondent claimed an amount by way of reward for having given information to concerned officers of the Department of Customs and Central Excise-One Firm M/s. Sanjeevani Fodder had evaded Customs duty amounting to Rs. 3 crores by contravening conditions of ad hoc exemption order-50 Fodder Production Units were imported by them subject to the condition that they would denote these machines to Bharat Krishak Samaj and they would use them only for demonstration purposes-However, the machines remained in control and possession of M/s. Sanjeevani at their own sites while they produced documents showing donation of these machines-Writ petitioner did not substantiate his claim that it was only on basis of information supplied by him that proceedings had been commenced by the Department which ultimately led to passing of an order of confiscation, fine and penalty-Whether writ petitioners had any legal right to claim the amount by way of reward-(No)?-Whether a Writ of Mandamus can be granted commanding the Government to give a particular amount by way of reward-(No).

       Held : The scheme or the policy of the Government of India dated 30.3.1985 shows that the authority competent to grant the reward, while taking a decision regarding the entitlement of the person concerned has to keep many factors in his mind like 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 of the persons 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 contraband goods, the owners/organisers/financiers/racketeers have been apprehended. The scheme further mentions that reward is an ex-gratia 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. The High Court in writ jurisdiction cannot examine or weigh the various factors which have to be taken into consideration while deciding a 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 matter 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. (Para 12)

       It is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that a Writ of Mandamas can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on 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. (Para 13)

       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 Mandamus-directing the appellant to pay the amount to the respondent. The Department had already sanctioned Rs.10 lakhs to the respondent before filing of the writ petition. In para 21 (e) of the counter-affidavit it is averred that except for a single amount of Rs. 2 lakhs towards redemption fine no other amount either by way of custom duty, penalty or redemption fine had been realised by the Department. The imported machinery could not be confiscated or auctioned as the same had been hypothecated to financial institutions from whom the importers had taken loan. In view of the amended policy the entitlement of the respondent, if any, could be a small amount as the Department had been able to realize only Rs. 2 lakhs. This is not a case where some large scale smuggling operations had been brought to light or the identity of some hard core smugglers had been revealed as a result of the information given by the respondent Yet the learned Single Judge of the High Court issued a writ that apart from Rs. 10 lakhs which had already been paid a further amount of Rs. 25 lakhs should be paid to the respondent within four weeks and the appellant was further directed to determine the respondent s entitlement of balance amount of the reward and pay the same within three months. The Division Bench in appeal only partly modified the order and issued directions for payment ofRs.5 lakhs within three weeks on the receipt of the copy of the order and a further sum of Rs. 5 lakhs within three weeks thereafter. It was further directed that in case the department failed to comply with the aforesaid direction within the stipulated time, it will have to pay the rest of the amount as per the orders of the learned Single Judge. We do not find any justification for passing these kind of peremptory orders. It is not a case of any hardship having been caused like delay in making payment of compensation to victims of an accident or to an agriculturist whose land may have been acquired depriving him of his only source of livelihood. On merits also we are clearly of the opinion that the orders passed by the High Court are not only wholly unwarranted but are also without any legal basis and are consequently liable to be set aside. (Para 14)