2013 (2) TMI 285

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....NT Per: Court: 1. The First Petitioner, who was a Deputy Director in the Mumbai Zonal office of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and retired on superannuation on 31 March 2004, and the Second Petitioner who claims to be an informer, have sought to challenge a decision taken by the Apex Reward Committee of rejecting their claim to the grant of a reward. The case of the Petitioners is t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ommunication of 16 May 2011 of the Additional Director of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Mumbai Zonal Unit. The relevant part thereof reads as follows :     "3.1 ... ... ... ... The said Committee noted inter alia that the information recorded in the case by Shri P C K Nair, the then Assistant Director, DRI, Mumbai, is undated; no DRI 1 appears to have been prepared and the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on Government to informers is not a matter of right. This principle has been enunciated in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. C. Krishna Reddy - 2004(163)-ELT 4-(S.C.) in the following terms:     "The scheme further mentions that reward is an exgratia payment and subject to the guidelines and may be granted on the absolute discretion of the authority competen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....this High Court in Mr.X Vs. DGCEI, Mumbai - 2012(282)-E.L.T. 363 (Bom.). 4. On the basis of the reasons which have been furnished in the impugned communication, it is evident that the claim of the Petitioners was duly considered by the competent authority. The reasons which weighed with the authority in declining to grant the reward, cannot be re-appreciated by substituting the opinion of the C....