JUDGMENT

S. Ravindra Bhat, J. (Open Court)--The petitioners in these proceedings, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seek direction for the release of an interim or advance reward to the tune of .22 lakhs and for a further direction for release of .99.26 lakhs with interest.

2. The petitioners claim to be the informer with respect to evasion of Central Excise Duty by M/s JV Industries. They rely upon the terms of a Reward Policy dated 20.06.2001 ("2001 Policy") as amended by a letter dated 16.04.2004, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Excise & Customs. It is contended that the petitioners furnished information to one Shri Rajesh Tomar, the then Superintendent (Central Excise (Anti Evasion Branch) in the Central Excise Commissionerate, Delhi-II, relating to duty evasion by M/s JV Industries which eventually led to the search and seizure operation at the premises of that concern on 19.12.2007. The petitioners submit that they claimed, by a letter dated 17.07.2008, the reward on account of the information furnished by them being useful to the Department.

3. In the pleadings it is contended that written information was provided by the petitioner: a translation of the petitioner's letter dated 12.11.2007 has been annexed to the pleadings. It is alleged that on 27.08.2008, the petitioner received a letter from the Assistant Commissioner stating that no interim reward could be paid in terms of the prevailing policy. The petitioners rely upon several letters and representations-including an appeal filed in this regard. They also relied upon the responses submitted by the Central Excise Authorities, in response to the queries made under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI), at two separate and distinct points of time. During the course of pleadings, it was inter alia, averred that

"after receiving the above letter, Petitioners went to the office of the Respondent No.5 from where they were informed that Shri Rajehs Tomar was already transferred and on phone Shri Tomar instructed the petitioners to remain in contact with Shri J.P. Singh, who had already given his mind to the Petitioners that nothing fruitful will be achieved by writing letters and that they should follow his instructions. As the terms of the said Shri Singh for giving blank Cheque-book duly signed by the Petitioners, was not acceptable as the same amounted to an unethical approach in the matter, they continued to follow up the matter with the appropriate authority of the Deptt. as mentioned in the succeeding paragraph."

4. In the counter affidavit, the respondents contend that there is no vested or entrenched right to claim a reward. Para 5 of the 2001 policy relied upon by the petitioner, it is argued, clarifies that grant of ex-gratia payment is a matter of discretion and cannot be claimed as a right. It is also contended that till final adjudication the rights, if at all, of such parties who claimed rewards are inchoate and Para 6.3 of the 2001 policy at best enable the Excise Authorities to consider payment of such amounts as may be deemed appropriate as interim or advance reward provided the concerned parties admits to their liability. It was submitted that even though in this case, the assesee JV Industries deposited . 4.40 crores, nevertheless it chose to contest the matter and its appeal is pending before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. As to the allegation about how the information or intelligence was derived or secured, the respondent averred as follows:

"Para 3 (VII) of the writ petition, as stated is wrong and denied. However, it is submitted that there was no Inspector by the name of Sh. J.P. Singh posted in the Anti Evasion branch of Central Excise, Delhi-II, Commissionerate at that time. Therefore, the contention of the applicant that he was asked by Sh. Rajesh Tomar to meet Sh. J.P. Singh Inspector are not correct and no such discussion is available