1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2456 OF 1996 Mr.John Stephen Curzai .. Petitioner Vs. The Union of India and Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Rahul Hakani with Mr.K.J. Hakani for the petitioner Mr.P.S.Jetly with Mr.J.B.Mishra for the respondents CORAM : J. N. Patel & A.P. Bhangale, JJ. DATE : 28th April, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER J.N.PATEL, J) : 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the Writ of Mandamus or any direction or order to the respondents to pay to the petitioner the balance Reward of Rs.40,09,019/- together with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. The petitioner has further sought an order against the respondents to provide at their own costs and expenses the life insurance cover of Rupees one crores or more from Life Insurance Corporation of India insuring the life of the petitioner for a period of 10 years or more and for interim relief pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition of the nature and by way of interim relief direct the respondents to deposit a sum of Rs.40,09,019/-. 2 2. The petitioner is a fisherman who works as an informer for the Respondents Central Excise and Customs Department. The petitioner informed respondent no.4, Mr.P.N. Ravindran, the then Inspector of Customs (Preventive) regarding illegal import of silver bricks at Mahim creek during the third week of February 1991. The respondent no.4 promised the petitioner that if the petitioner s information is found to be correct, he shall ’ get a reward of 20% of the value of goods as per his departmental policy. 3. According to the petitioner, in the early morning of 20th February, 1991, he contacted respondent no.4 and gave him specific information that there was possibility of entering the vessel carrying 150 pieces of smuggled silver ingots during any moment at the night time and alerted respondent no.4 to be ready for seizure of the vessel. He further told respondent no.4 that no sooner he sees the vessel entering the Mahim creek he would immediately telephone to his office. Accordingly, in the early morning of 20th February, 1991, the petitioner on seeing the smuggler s vessel immediately telephoned ’ to the office of respondent no.4 to immediately rush to the given-address by the petitioner i.e. at Tabela, Bandra and further told that he would keep watch on the smuggler s vessel till the arrival of the custom officers. ’ Accordingly, the petitioner states that he kept watch on the movement of the said smuggler s vessels. The respondent no.4 on reaching the site ’ recorded the information given by the petitioner on paper and obtained his thumb impression thereon. 3 4. It is the petitioner s case that inspite of the petitioner giving specific ’ information about smuggling of silver ingots, the description of the vessel and information about landing agent and smugglers, the respondents did not take down the specific information and as the petitioner is an illiterate, his thumb impression was obtained. The petitioner has also claimed that pursuant to his information at around 1.00 a.m. on 21st February, 1991, the respondent no.4 was able to seize the smuggler s vessel loaded with silver ’ bricks and he congratulated and thanked the petitioner for furnishing him true and correct information at the risks of his life and told the petitioner that he intercepted about 150 silver bricks weighing about 4500 to 5000 kg which according to the petitioner was worth Rs.3,36,63,133/- as revealed from the press release. 5. According to the petitioner, the petitioner visited the office of the Customs (Preventive) and also met the then Additional Collector, Custom (Preventive) with a grievance of non-receipt of the Reward though the petitioner was entitled for the same. 6. The petitioner claims that he is entitled for 20% of the value of 150 silver bricks by way of reward as per the circular which comes to Rs.48,09,019/-. In support of his contention, the petitioner place reliance on the confiscation order dt.23.09.91 passed by the then Additional Collector of Customs wherein the value of 150 silver ingots has been assessed as Rs.3,36,63,133/-. The petitioner thereafter pursued his claim for reward by writing to the various 4 authorities including the Finance Minister and Prime Minister of the Country and it is his case that consequent upon the intervention of the Hon ble ’ Finance Minister, the Custom Department had sanctioned the petitioner Rs. 8,00,000/- being the part amount of the Reward as against reward amount of Rs.48 lacs. The petitioner further pursued the matter with the department but as there was no response, he is required to file this petition. 7. In reply, the respondents have filed an affidavit of Mr.U.G.Kulkarni, Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Marine Preventive, Reward Cell, Marine Lines, Mumbai 400 020. It was contended that the government has formulated a policy which prescribe the procedure in respect of grant of Reward vide Order No.13011/3/85.Ad.V dated 30.3.1985 and 7.6.1985 and that the Reward Committee has considered the facts and circumstances of the case and after due consideration sanctioned the amount of Rs.8 lakhs as Reward on 10.7.192 as Final Reward. 8. It is denied that the petitioner informer had given specific information about smuggling and landing of the contraband and that the information came to be recorded as narrated by the informer. It is also contended by the respondents that in case of silver the maximum reward can be at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per kg. and is purely an ex-gratia payment which can be granted at the absolute discretion of the Authority competent to grant Reward and cannot be claimed by any person as a matter of right. It is further submitted that in determining the quantum of reward which may be 5 granted, the Authority competent to grant reward keeps in mind the specific nature and accuracy of information, the risk and trouble undertaken by the informer, the extent and nature of the help rendered by the informer, whether the information indicates names of the persons involved in smuggling etc. and therefore, it is submitted that on representation of the Informer, the Review Committee held a meeting on 10th March 1994 and after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case came to the conclusion that for the services rendered by the Informer, the amount of reward given was reasonable and therefore, no case is made out and petition deserves to be dismissed. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the information report given by the petitioner and which came to be recorded (Exhibit I). The same is reproduced as under: – I, the unregistered informant of Shri P.N. Raveendran, Inspector Cus. “ (Prev.) has the following information to pass on. That two vessels (one piolet) and one loaded with contraband goods have entered in the Mahim creek and the said vessel is going to land the goods either in Tabella or Mahim Rati Bunder, at about 19.30 hours. You may rush to the spot and intercept the vessel. Till that time, I shall keep watch on the same. I shall pin point the vessel with contraband. I may be suitably rewarded if the goods are intercepted. ” 6 10. The information goes to show that the informant was having reliable information but it was not specific in respect of the nature of the contraband and the place of landing. The petitioner was granted a sum of Rs.8 lacs by way of reward and there is nothing to show that the same was by way of interim reward. On the other hand, this was the total amount which was sanctioned by the reward Committee. It is also evident from the affidavit in reply which is not disputed that the Review Committee held a meeting on 10th March, 1994 and considered the representation of the petitioner and found that the service rendered by the informant and the amount of reward given was reasonable. 11. It is settled in a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court namely Union of India Versus R. Padmanabhan reported in 2003 (156) E.L.T. 625, Union of India Versus C. Krishna Reddy reported in 2004 (163) E.L.T. 4 and D.G.Revenue Intelligence and Invest. Versus Amrit Lal Mehta reported in 2007 (220) E.L.T. 9 that: reward is purely an ex-gratia payment, subject to the Guidelines on “ the discretion of the competent authority, though it cannot arbitrarily be denied or refused at whim or fancy and it should specifically conform to and must be shown to fall or claimed within the four corners of the Scheme and not by any deviation or modulation of the Scheme, as the Courts think it should be and if it cannot come 7 strictly within the four corners of it, such claim may have to be dealt with only under the residuary powers enabling the grant of reward. This apart, 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.” 12. Therefore, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find that the petitioner has made out any case for enhancement of the reward and in so far as grant of interest is concerned, the same is not justified. Other reliefs claimed by the petitioners for life insurance cover and protection cannot be considered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, rejected. 13. Petition is, therefore, dismissed. Rule discharged. (J.N. PATEL, J) (A.P. BHANGALE, J) 8