JUDGMENT :

NITIN JAMDAR, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The Respondents waive service. Taken up for disposal.

2. The Petitioner is the wife of deceased Informer who provided specific information to the office of the Marine and Preventive Wing of the Mumbai Commissionerate of Customs which led to seizure of smuggled goods. The Petitioner is before us with a grievance that the reward which is given to the Informers as per the policy is unjustifiably withheld.

3. The Central Board of Excise and Customs (Anti-Smuggling Unit) issued Circular No. 20/2015 on 31 July 2015 titled “Guidelines for grant of reward to Informers and Government Servants, 2015.” At the title suggests these guidelines are applicable to the grant of reward to Informers and Government Servants in respect of cases of seizure made out/or infringements/evasion of duty/service tax etc., detected under the Customs Act, 1962 and others. Part-I of the Circular deals with the principles governing the grant of reward. The reward to be given under this policy is an ex-gratia payment, subject to conditions and it is not to be claimed as a matter of right. We will refer to the clauses as applicable to the Informers.

4. Clause 3.3 of the Circular of 2015 lays down criteria for the grant of reward. Under clause 3.3.1, it is stated that in cases of collection of information/intelligence in respect of seizure made out/or infringements/evasion of duty/service tax etc. various factors have to be considered, such as the specificity and accuracy of the information, the risk and trouble undertaken by the Informer, and the extent and nature of the help rendered by the Informer. Clause 5 deals with the quantum and ceiling of rewards. As per clause 5.1.1, the Informers are eligible to reward up to 20% of the net sale proceeds of the contraband seized. Clause 6 contemplates payment of advance/interim reward. Under clause 6.1, advance/interim reward may be paid to the Informers up to 50% of the total admissible reward immediately on seizure in respect of the gold/silver bullion, arms and ammunition, and explosives. The payment of the final reward is referred to under clause 7 of the Circular. The final reward is to be sanctioned and disbursed after the conclusion of adjudication/appeal/revision proceedings and closure of proceedings. Clause 7.2 incorporates the time limit to sanction the final reward, stating that as an incentive to improve compliance, it is desirable that the procedure should be followed to release the final reward immediately after the conclusion of the proceedings. As regards the identity of the Informer, additional information is to be kept as per clause 11.2 with a left thumb impression to reduce delay in disbursal of reward. Additional information is not considered mandatory for the grant of reward to the Informer, and no reward shall be withheld for non-furnishing of additional information. As per clause 3.4, in the event of the death of the Informer, the authority competent may grant a reward to legal heirs or nominees of an Informer of an amount not exceeding the amount that would have been paid to the Informer if he was alive. These in short are the relevant clauses of the Circular No. 20/2015 governing the grant of rewards to the Informers.

5. It is the Petitioner's case that her husband-Chandrakant, furnished a specific information in writing regarding the import and storage of the smuggled diamonds in respect of Business entity (referred to as the Jewellers) in 1991. Though generally name of the Informer is not disclosed, we have referred to the Petitioner’s husband by name as he is now no more and the information was given almost 32 years ago, and the dispute raised is about the identity.

6. An information was delivered in writing to Mr. Daya Shankar, the then Assistant Commissioner of Customs (P), Marine and Preventive Wing of the Custom Commissionerate, on 21 March 1991. The information was kept in a sealed cover with the Additional Commissioner of