Court Orders Payment of Informer Reward, Emphasizes Adherence to Policy

The court concluded that the Petitioner was entitled to the balance reward amount as the information provided by the Petitioner was crucial in the successful seizure of goods and subsequent revenue generation. The court criticized the Respondents for delaying the reward and emphasized the importance of adhering to the Reward Policy to encourage informers. The court directed the Respondents to pay the Petitioner the balance reward as per the Reward Policy within three months, after adjusting the advance amount already paid.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to balance reward amount for the Petitioner.
2. Legitimacy of the Respondent's actions in withholding the reward.
3. Interpretation and application of the Reward Policy dated 16th April 2004.

Analysis of the Judgment:

Entitlement to Balance Reward Amount for the Petitioner
The Petitioner, an informer for the Customs Department, sought a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to release the balance reward amount due to him. The Petitioner provided specific information about goods imported illegally, leading to the seizure and confiscation of these goods. The Petitioner contended that despite the seizure and subsequent revenue generation for the government, he was only paid an advance reward of Rs. 5 lacs, with the balance reward still pending.

Legitimacy of the Respondent's Actions in Withholding the Reward
The Respondents argued that the Petitioner could not claim the reward as a matter of right, citing paragraph 5 of the Reward Scheme, which states that the reward is purely ex gratia and subject to the discretion of the authority. They also mentioned that the Reward Committee had not favored further reward due to an ongoing Directorate of Vigilance enquiry, which has since concluded.

Interpretation and Application of the Reward Policy Dated 16th April 2004
The court examined the Reward Policy and found that the Petitioner had provided specific information leading to the seizure of goods and subsequent revenue generation of Rs. 2,65,26,500/- from auctioning the confiscated goods. The court noted that the information provided by the Petitioner was crucial and led to the successful seizure, contradicting the Respondent's claim of prior information from January 2010.

The court criticized the Respondents for their delay in acting on the alleged prior information and emphasized that the Petitioner's information was the basis for the successful seizure. The court also highlighted the importance of adhering to the Reward Policy to encourage informers to come forward with valuable information.

The court referenced a similar case (Lalan Kishor Singh v. State of Maharashtra) where the importance of timely rewarding informers was emphasized to avoid dissuading potential informers from providing information.

Conclusion
The court concluded that the Petitioner's claim for the balance reward was legitimate and that the Respondent's actions appeared to be an afterthought to deprive the Petitioner of his rightful reward. The court directed the Respondents to pay the Petitioner the reward as per the Policy of Reward for Informers & Officers dated 16th April 2004, within three months, after adjusting the amount already paid.

---