Court upholds rejection of informer reward claim, stresses discretion of competent authorities

The Court upheld the decision of the Apex Reward Committee to reject the claim for a reward by the Petitioners, emphasizing that the grant of rewards to informers is discretionary and falls within the purview of competent authorities. The judgment highlighted that courts cannot interfere in such matters and reiterated that they cannot substitute their views for those of the authority evaluating informer claims. The Court found that the rejection of the reward claim was based on valid reasons and not arbitrary, leading to the dismissal of the petition without costs.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to rejection of reward claim by Apex Reward Committee.

Analysis:
The case involves a challenge by the First Petitioner, a retired Deputy Director, and the Second Petitioner, an informer, against the decision of the Apex Reward Committee rejecting their claim for a reward. The Petitioners alleged that the information provided by the Second Petitioner led to actions against under-valuation of thoroughbred mares/horses imported into India. The Committee, comprising senior officials, rejected the claim citing procedural lapses, including the absence of a valid DRI 1 record, which is essential for granting rewards to informers. The communication from the Additional Director outlined these lapses, leading to the rejection of the proposal.

The judgment highlighted that the grant of a reward to informers is not an automatic entitlement but falls under the discretionary power of competent authorities. Citing a Supreme Court ruling, it emphasized that the decision to grant rewards is solely within the department's purview, and courts cannot interfere in such matters. The judgment also referred to a Division Bench ruling reinforcing the discretionary nature of reward grants. It reiterated that courts cannot substitute their views for those of the competent authority tasked with evaluating informer claims.

Ultimately, the Court found that the competent authority had duly considered the Petitioners' claim and provided valid reasons for rejecting the reward request. The judgment emphasized that the Court cannot reevaluate the authority's decision or impose its opinion on reward matters. Concluding that the reasons for denial were not arbitrary or irrelevant, the Court dismissed the petition without imposing any costs.

---