Court Upholds Decision on Reward Challenge

The court dismissed the Original Petition challenging the order sanctioning additional rewards for providing information leading to the seizure of contraband goods. Emphasizing the discretionary power of administrative authorities in granting rewards, the court held that judicial interference is limited to cases of patent discrimination. The petitioner's challenge to the order sanctioning a further sum was rejected as it failed to establish grounds of arbitrariness, discrimination, or mala fides. The judgment underscored the responsible and reasonable exercise of discretionary power by administrative authorities, highlighting the limited scope of judicial review in such matters.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge to the order sanctioning additional amount as reward.
2. Challenge to the order sanctioning a further sum.
3. Discretionary power of administrative authorities in granting rewards.
4. Judicial review of discretionary powers in reward sanctioning.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The petitioner sought to quash an order sanctioning an additional amount as a reward for providing information that led to the seizure of contraband goods. The petitioner had received a reward of Rs. 25,000 earlier but was dissatisfied and made representations for a higher amount. The court directed a reconsideration of the reward amount, emphasizing the discretion of authorities in granting reasonable rewards based on the value of information provided. The petitioner challenged the subsequent order sanctioning a further sum, arguing that it was inadequate and lacked proportionality to the seized goods' value. The court noted that while the petitioner had no statutory right to claim a specific percentage of the seized goods' value, the discretion of the authority in granting rewards was limited to judicial interference only in cases of patent discrimination.

Issue 2:
The petitioner challenged the order sanctioning a further sum, contending that it was not proportionate to the contraband goods' value seized based on the information provided. The court emphasized the discretionary power of administrative authorities in granting rewards, highlighting that the discretion must be exercised reasonably, taking into account relevant considerations without arbitrariness. The court noted that while challenges against exercise of discretionary power are difficult, they can be made on grounds of gross arbitrariness, discrimination, or mala fides, none of which were established by the petitioner in this case.

Issue 3:
The judgment underscored that when administrative authorities are vested with discretionary power, it should be exercised responsibly and reasonably. The court highlighted that the authority's discretion should not be interfered with by the court unless there is discrimination in its exercise. It was emphasized that the discretion must be used with a high sense of responsibility and in accordance with reasoning, without being arbitrary or capricious.

Issue 4:
The court addressed the scope of judicial review concerning discretionary powers in reward sanctioning. It was noted that while the court cannot substitute its decision for that of the authority exercising discretionary power, challenges can be made on grounds of arbitrariness, discrimination, or mala fides. The judgment clarified that discretionary power is not absolute and can be reviewed if exercised improperly, but in this case, the petitioner failed to establish any such grounds for challenging the discretionary power exercised by the second respondent.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the Original Petition, stating that the petitioner was not entitled to the reliefs sought, highlighting the limited scope of judicial interference in matters involving discretionary powers of administrative authorities in granting rewards.

---