UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. C. KRISHNA REDDY

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by G G.P. MATHUR, J. : I. This appeal by special leave has been preferred by Union of India against the judgment and order dated 22.9.1999 of a Division Bench of Mad.as High Court in a writ appeal whereby the order passed by a learned Single Judge on 22.9 .1998 directing H

p. 1088 Copy page pinpoint

A payment of Rs. 25 lakhs in addition to the sum of Rs. 10 lakhs already paid by way of reward for giving information to custom authorities was partly modified.

2Copy pinpoint2. The r~spondent C. Krishna Reddy filed a writ petition in the High B Court ofMadras claiming an amount of Rs. l',71,43,272 by way of reward for having given information to the concerned officers of the Department of Customs and Central Excise. The case set up in the writ petition, in brief, was that Mis. Sanjeevani Fodder Products Pvt. Ltd., (hereinafter referred as 'Sanjeevani') and Mis. FOMETA India Machines Pvt. Ltd., (hereinafter referred as 'FOMETA') had evaded Customs duty amounting to approxi- mately Rs. 3 crores by contravening the conditions of ad hoc exemption Order No. I 03187 dated 30.3.1987 as amended. Mis. Sanjeevani had got the said exemption order from the Government of India exempting 50 Fodder Production Units to be imported by them subject to the condition that they would donate these machines to Bharat Krishak Samaj (BKS) within 15 days from their clearance and BKS would use them only for demonstration purposes and would not sell, transfer or dispose of these machines for a period of five years. Mis. Sanjeevani had imported and cleared these machines through the Port of Madras free of duty in terms of the said exemption order. Though Mis. Sanjee'::ani had produced documents before the Customs authorities showing donation of these machines to BKS but the same remained in their control and possession at their own sites and also at the site of Mis. FOMETA and were being utilised for commercial production of fodder and hence both the conditions of the ad hoc exemption Order were contravened. The exemption Order F was for 50 machines but actually 56 machines had been imported -and 5 out of them had been sold to some Government Departments. The case of Writ petitioner (respondent herein) further was that on the basis of the information furnished by him and inquiries made by the authorities of the Department they came to know that Mis. Sanjeevani had started selling the G Fodder Production Units. After the import of the machines in CKD condition, Mis. Sanjeevani got the Fodder Production Units assembled at Gummidipoondi at the work place of M/s. FOMETA and thereafter 12 units were installed in Bolaram, 12 in Bulandshahir, 12 in Bagru and the balance 14 FPUs were to be stationed at Jaisalmer. Some of the units were operational as per the investigation. The Department thereafter issued a

U.0.1. v. C.K. REDDY [G.P. MATHUR, J.] 1089

show cause notice dated 12.2.1990 and proceedings were initiated for confiscation of the goods. The case was adjudicated by Collector of Customs (Judicial) Madras who passed an order on 5.3.1993 directing for confiscation of the goods with an option for redemption of the same on payment of fine and a penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs was imposed upon Mis. FOMET A and personal penalty was imposed upon some Directors of the company. After the decision of the Commissioner of Customs (Madras) the writ petitioner sent a letter dated 15.4.1993 to the Deputy Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Madras, to sanction him the reward keeping in view the duty, fine and penalty levied in the case. The Department sanctioned an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs on 6.11.1993 as an advance reward which was paid to him and thereafter another sum of Rs. 5 lakhs was sanctioned on 26.4.1995 and in this manner he received only Rs. 10 lakhs. The writ petition was accordingly filed claiming the balance amount of reward in terms of the guidelines issued by the Department. D

3Copy pinpoint3. Counter-affidavit on behalfofthe respondent was filed by Shri R. Mohan Doss, Assistant Director in the Directorate of Revenue, Intelli- gence, Madras wherein it is stated that on the basis of the information received, investigation was done and it was found that Mis. Sanjeevani and E Mis. FOMETA had evaded-customs duty amounting to Rs. 3 crores by contravening the conditions of ad hoc examination order No. I 03187 dated 30.3.1987. The details of the manner of import, misutilisation of the machines, contravention of the exemption order, the proceedings initiated by the Collector of Customs and the orders passed by him have also been given. It is averred in para 7 and 10.7 of the counter affidavit that only one party namely, Indian Grass Land and Fodder Research Institute, Jhansi, deposited the redemption fine of Rs. 2 lakhs in respect of one confiscated unit but in respect of remaining 55 units nobody came forward to clear the same on payment of redemption fine and duty and the penalty amounts could not be recovered from the persons concerned. The seized articles could not be auctioned as Mis. Sanjeevani had taken loans against the Fodder Production Units from financial institutions and such financial institutions have also claimed the units which had been hypothecated to them. Even though no duty, fine or penalty could be realised from the persons concerned but an amount of Rs. H

p. 1090 Copy page pinpoint

A I 0 lakhs was sanctioned and disbursed to the writ petitioner by way of reward.

4Copy pinpoint4. The is important to note that in the counter-affidavit, it is nowhere admitted that the depa1iment conducted the investigation in the matter of import of machines and availing of exemption notification by Mis. Sanjeevani and M/s. FOMET A only on the basis of information furnished by the Writ Petitioner. Therefore, the main ground for claiming the reward had not been admitted. The writ petitioner did not substantiate his claim in any manner that it was only on the basis of the information su.pplied by him that the proceedings had been commenced by the Department which ultimately led to passing of an order of confiscation, fine and penalty.

5Copy pinpoint5. The learned Single Judge proceeded on the footing that admittedly the writ petitioner gave the information with regard to contravention made by Mis. Sanjeevani and M/s. FOMETTA and thereafter Units were seized, adjudication proceedings were initiated and finally a duty ofRs. 3.37 crores apart from redemption fine of Rs. 3.80 crores and penalty of Rs. 1.55 crores was levied and consequently the writ petitioner is entitled for a reward of E 20 per cent of the total amount. The learned Judge further held that when the writ petitioner passed on the information on a reasonable hope and expectation that he will get the award, the principle of legitimate expec- tation would come into play and he was entitled to the award. The plea of Union of India that writ petitioner was not entitled to claim the reward as a matter of right since the orders issued by Government in this regard are merely guidelines and do not have any force of law was not accepted. The learned Judge also brushed aside the contention of the appellant that in spite of best efforts the Department had not been able to realise any amount and till such realisation was made it was not possible to give any amount by way of reward. The learned Judge went on to hold that taking in to consideration the fact that the writ petitioner had been paid a sum of Rs. I 0 lakhs, he should be paid an additional sum of Rs. 25 lakhs within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The Department was fmiher directed to determine his entitlement of the reward in respect of the balance amount and pass an order with regard to disbursement of the same within three months.

U.0.1. v. C.K. REDDY [G.P. MATHUR, J.] 1091

6Copy pinpoint6. The Union of India preferred a writ appeal against the decision of learned Single Judge wherein it was submitted that as per the guidelines which had been modified on 30.3.1989 the reward can be granted only after the issue had been finally adjudicated and the amount had been realised. The Division Bench, however, held that the amount of the reward had to be paid in accordance with the guidelines as they stood before the amendment and the amended guidelines cannot be given any retrospective operation. Taking the view that the amount directed to be paid by the \earned Single Judge was on the higher side, it was directed that department should pay a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs within three weeks from the date of the receipt of the order and a further su~ of Rs. 5 lakhs within three weeks thereafter. In the event the Department failed to pay the aforesaid amount within the time granted, it would pay the whole amount as per the order of the learned Single Judge.

7Copy pinpoint7. Learned counsel for the appellant Union oflndia has submitted that the guidelines issued on 30.3 .1985 regarding payment of award had been amended on 30.3 .1989 and since the present case the Collector of Customs had decided the matter subsequently on 5.3.1993, it is the amended guidelines which would be applicable and the payment had to be made in. accordance with the said guidelines. Learned counsel has also submitted that reward is purely an ex-gratia payment, which subject to the guidelines, may be granted on the discretion of the competent authority and a decision regarding claim of amount is to be taken upon consideration of evidence after giving due regard to many factors and, therefore, no Writ of Mandamus can be issued by the Court to direct payment of a quantified amount by way of reward. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that the policy dated 30.3.1985 having been uni formally followed by the Government in making payment of the reward to informers, there was no reason to depart from the same and the revised guidelines dated 30.3.1989 cannot be given any retrospective operation. Learned counsel has further submitted that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the High Court was perfectly correct and calls for no interference.

8Copy pinpoint8. In order to examine the question whether the respondent had any legal right to claim the amount by way of reward as a matter of right, it H

p. 1092 Copy page pinpoint

A is necessary to take note of the relevant provisions of the guidelines issued by the Government of India on 30.3.1985 regarding the policy, procedure and orders in respect of grant of rewards to informers and Government servants in case of seizure made and evasion of duty etc. detected u~der the provisions of the Customs Act, Central Excise and Salt Act, 1962, Gold B Control Act and Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. Paras 4 and 4.1 of the guidelines read as under :

"4. REWARD SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED AS A MATTER OF ROUTINE c 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 which may be granted, the authority competent to grant reward will keep in mind the specificity and accuracy of the information, the risk and trouble undeqaken, the extent ~nd nature of the help rendered by the informer, whether infor- mation gives clues to persons involved in smuggling, or their associates, etc.; the 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 seizure of contraband goods, the owners/organisers/ F financiers/racketeers as well as the carriers have been apprehended or not."

9Copy pinpoint9. para 8 of the guidelines provides that all cases of grant of reward shall be examined and approved by a Committee of three senior officers G and in case of grant of reward in excess of Rs. twenty lakh to an informer it has to be approved by a Committee consisting of the Head of Department, Director Preventive Operations and Additional Collector/Deputy Director. Enforcement/Deputy Director, Anti Evasion/DR!. The aforesaid guidelines were reviewed and the existing reward policy was modified on 30.3.1989 H and the same reads as under :

U.0.1. v. C.K. REDDY [G.P. MATHUR, J.] 1093

"The issue whether final reward should be given only after actual realisation of Central Excise duty, penalty, fine even if appeal/ revision proceeding has concluded resulting in confiscation and/ or confirmation of demand has also been under-consideration of the Government. Keeping in view all aspects of the matter, it has been decided that final reward should be paid only after actual realisation of the Central Excise Duty/Customs Duty, penalty, fine etc. Para 6.3 of reward rules dated 30.3.85 stands amended accordingly."

10Copy pinpoint10. The learned Single Judge and also Division Bench of the High C Court have held that the reward has to be paid in accordance with the policy or guidelines issued on 30.3.1985 and the subsequent modification of the policy done by the Government oflndia on 30.3.1989 will not govern the situation as the same was not retrospective in operation.

11Copy pinpoint11. In our opinion, the view taken by the High Court that the revised guidelines would not apply is patently erroneous both on the fact situation of the case and also as a principle of law. The respondent has himself averred in para 14 of the writ petition that the Collector of Customs, Madras decided the case by his order dated 5 .3 .1993 and thereafter he started contacting the officers of the Department for payment of the reward. He, therefore, made a claim for grant of reward for the first time in 1993. In Union of India v. R. Padmanabhan, (2003) JT 7 SC 196 exactly same question was examined and it was held that being ex-gratia no right accrues to any sum as such till it is determined and awarded and, in such cases, normally it should not only be in terms of the guidelines and policy, in force, as on the date of consideration and actual grant but has to be necessarily with reference to any indications contained in this regard in the scheme itself. It was also held that the question of any vested rights accrued being protected from any subsequent amendments would not arise in such a case and, therefore,. the guidelines as are in force on the date of consideration will really be applicable and relevant.

12Copy pinpoint12. 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 H

p. 1094 Copy page pinpoint

A 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 B 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 ofright. C 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 ofreward. 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 D 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. Though this specific plea was taken in paras 18 and 21 of the counter affidavit, yet neither the learned Single Judge nor the Division Bench adverted to this aspect of the matter.

13Copy pinpoint13. 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. (See Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh, AIR (1977) SC 2149 para 15; Lekharj Satram Dass Lalvani v. Deputy Custodian-cum-Managing Officer, AIR (1966) SC 334 and Dr. Umakant H Saran v. State of Bihar, AIR (1973) SC 964.

U.0.1. v. C.K. REDDY [G.P. MATHUR, J.] 1095

14Copy pinpoint14. By the very nature of things no one has a legal right to claim a 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 B the respondent. The Department had already sanctioned Rs. I 0 lakhs to the respondent before filing of the writ petition. In para 2l(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 C machine1y 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 s.ome 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. l 0 lakhs which had already been paid a further amount of Rs. 25 lakhs 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 of Rs. 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 pa.,sing 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 I1igh Court are not only wholly unwarranted but are also without any legal basis and are consequently liable to be set aside. H

p. 1096 Copy page pinpoint

15Copy pinpoint15. The writ petitioner C. Krishna Reddy has also filed an appeal by special leave challenging the judgment and order dated 22.9.1999 of the Division Bench of the High Court passed in the Writ Appeal. Since we have held that the writ petitioner is not entitled to any further amount, the appeal preferred by him is liable to be dismissed. B

16Copy pinpoint16. In the result CA No. 7127 of 1999 filed by Union of India is allowed and the judgment and order dated 22.9.1998 of the learned Single Judge and 22.9.1999 of the Division Bench of the High Court are set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondent is dismissed. C.A. No. 877 C of 2000 filed by C. Krishna Reddy is also dismissed.

A.Q. C.A. No. 7127/1999 allowed. C.A. No. 877/2000 dismissed.