Informer reward under confidential departmental scheme is not enforceable by writ without a clear legal right to payment.

A claim for informer reward under a confidential departmental scheme was treated as dependent on the quality of information, the assistance rendered, the risk and trouble undertaken, and the department's administrative assessment. The arrangement was not regarded as an absolute entitlement enforceable as of right, and the Court held that no writ remedy would lie to compel payment in the absence of a clear legal right. The informer's role did not create a fundamental right to reward, and the challenge to non-payment failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ could be issued to compel the Income-tax Department to grant the petitioner a reward for information supplied as an informer, and whether such a claim was enforceable in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The claim to reward was held to depend on the quality of information, the extent of assistance rendered, the risk and trouble undertaken, and the departmental assessment made under the confidential Search and Seizure Manual. The arrangement between the informer and the Department was treated as confidential and linked to departmental evaluation rather than as an absolute entitlement enforceable as of right. The Court declined to treat the petitioner's role as an informer as giving rise to a fundamental right or to a writ remedy compelling payment.

Conclusion: No writ could be issued to enforce the claimed reward, and the petition was held to be misconceived.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to non-payment of informer reward failed, and the writ petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A claim for informer reward under a confidential departmental scheme, being dependent on administrative assessment and the quality of assistance rendered, is not enforceable by writ unless a clear legal right to payment is shown.

---