Informant reward under CBDT guidelines remains discretionary, with judicial interference limited to manifest illegality or patent arbitrariness.

An informant reward under CBDT's 2007 reward guidelines is discretionary and ex gratia, so it cannot be judicially enhanced merely because the claimant seeks a higher amount. The final fixation, made after reconsideration of the material and weightage factors linked to the information and resulting recovery, was not disturbed because no manifest illegality or patent arbitrariness was shown. The claimant's prior undertaking not to challenge the decision also weighed against interference. The challenge to enhancement of the reward was therefore rejected, and no enforceable right to a higher reward was recognised.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to enhancement of the informant reward beyond the amount finally fixed by the CBDT under the 2007 reward guidelines.

Analysis: The final reward had been determined by the competent authority after reconsideration of the material, including the recovery attributable to the petitioner's information and the applicable weightage factors under the reward policy. The reward was treated as an ex gratia payment resting in the absolute discretion of the authority, and the petitioner had also undertaken not to challenge the correctness of that decision in court. In the absence of manifest illegality or patent arbitrariness in the fixation of the reward, the Court declined to interfere with the expert body's assessment or to substitute its own calculation.

Conclusion: The petitioner had no enforceable right to claim a higher reward, and the challenge to the final reward determination was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: An informant reward governed by policy and granted ex gratia cannot be judicially enhanced unless the final fixation is shown to be manifestly illegal or patently arbitrary.

---