Discretionary reward guidelines require reasoned fixation of quantum; reduced reward order was set aside for lack of application of mind.

Discretionary reward guidelines required the competent authority to fix quantum on relevant considerations and give reasons for any reduction. A reduced reward order was therefore unsustainable where it did not show application of mind to the information supplied and the assistance rendered; petitioners 2 to 6 were held entitled to the full 20% reward on the seized goods' value. By contrast, the first petitioner, who only passed on information and did not directly assist in the seizure, was not treated as an eligible informer and his claim was rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioners 2 to 6 were entitled to the full reward of 20% of the value of the goods seized under the applicable reward guidelines, and whether the order sanctioning only Rs. 25,000/- could be sustained. (ii) Whether the first petitioner was entitled to any reward as an informer.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioners 2 to 6 were entitled to the full reward of 20% of the value of the goods seized under the applicable reward guidelines, and whether the order sanctioning only Rs. 25,000/- could be sustained.

Analysis: The reward scheme treated informers as eligible for reward up to 20% of the value of the contraband or confiscated goods, while leaving quantum to the competent authority's discretion. On the facts, petitioners 2 to 6 salvaged the goods, rescued persons in distress, informed the authorities, and materially assisted the seizure. The impugned order gave no reasons showing consideration of the relevant factors such as the information supplied, the assistance rendered, and the basis for reducing the reward from the permissible ceiling. The discretion was therefore not shown to have been exercised on relevant materials and the order was held to be non-speaking and unsupported by application of mind.

Conclusion: The reduction of the reward to Rs. 25,000/- was unsustainable, and petitioners 2 to 6 were held entitled to 20% of the value of the goods seized, namely Rs. 92,540/-.

Issue (ii): Whether the first petitioner was entitled to any reward as an informer.

Analysis: The first petitioner did not salvage the bundles or directly render the assistance that led to seizure. He merely conveyed the information received from petitioners 2 to 6 to the Customs officials. On that basis, he did not fall within the category of informer contemplated by the reward order.

Conclusion: The rejection of the first petitioner's claim was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded to the extent that the reward order was quashed in respect of petitioners 2 to 6 and the authorities were directed to pay the full reward computed at 20% of the seized goods' value, while the first petitioner's rejection remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a reward is governed by discretionary guidelines, the competent authority must exercise that discretion on relevant considerations and record a reasoned basis for the quantum fixed; a reward order fixing a reduced amount without such application of mind is liable to be interfered with.

---