Disputed reward claims under a government scheme are not fit for writ relief absent a clear enforceable legal right.

A disputed and belated claim for reward under a government scheme could not be pursued in writ jurisdiction where entitlement depended on contested facts and no enforceable legal right was shown. The respondents denied that the claimant had supplied the information or that the investigation was booked on that basis, so the claim required factual determination beyond Article 226 proceedings. The court also treated the delay as material. In the absence of a clear legal right to the reward, writ relief was unavailable and the reward claim was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition could be maintained for payment of reward under the Government reward scheme when the claimant's entitlement was disputed, the claim was delayed, and no enforceable legal right was shown.

Analysis: The claim was founded on the reward scheme and related correspondence, but the respondents disputed that the petitioner was the source of the investigation or that the case was booked on the basis of his information. The petitioner's entitlement therefore depended on contested facts. The Court also noted that the claim was stale and belated. In such circumstances, and in the absence of a clear legal right to the reward amount, the dispute could not be resolved in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to relief in writ jurisdiction, and the reward claim was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A disputed and belated claim for a discretionary reward, unsupported by an enforceable legal right, is not fit for adjudication in writ jurisdiction.

---