TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (11) TMI 203
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....petitioner as per circular F. No. R.13011/5/88 ADB dated 7th June, 1988. Learned Judge, by impugned order dated 8th March, 2001 [2001 (131) E.L.T. 321 (Mad.)], having allowed the writ petition directing the appellants to pay the reward to the respondent/writ petitioner as per circular dated 7th June, 1988, in and by which a partial modification to annexure to the instructions contained in the letter dated 30th March, 1985 had been made with regard to quantum of reward payable to the informers, the present appeal has been preferred by Union of India and Revenue authorities. 2. In fact, the case is not based on any question on law and is dependent on the question of facts, particularly the question of fact as admitted by parties. The 1s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the respondent contacted the Assistant Collector of Customs, Divisional Office, Nagapattinam and Preventive Officer, Office of Collector of Customs, Madras, he was informed that though the vessel 'AL-KARA' was sighted, as per information furnished by the Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue intelligence, Madras, the same could not be intercepted as the vessel was in the mid sea and due to Coast Guard movement the vessel crew got alerted and sailed straight to the Port of Male without off-loading the contra band. The respondent-writ petitioner claims that though he informed that the vessel may discharge the contraband between Sayalkudi and Tiruchendur, when he contacted the Additional Collector of Customs, Madras about wheth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate of Revenue Intelligence, Madras, recommending release of reward amount, but there was no response from the 6th appellant. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Ngapattinam, was therefore deputed by the Collector of Customs, Madras, to meet the 6th appellant, Additional Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Madras, but on such meeting the 6th appellant stated to have told the Assistant Collector of Customs, Nagapattinam that information furnished by the respondent/writ petitioner was 100% correct. It was also informed orally by the 6th appellant that apart from the information given by the respondent/writ petitioner, no other information was available in that case. The claim of the respondent/writ petitioner was registered initial....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ties and noticed their relevant contentions and also perused the record. It is not in dispute that as per the guidelines, relating to grant of reward for information to government servants in case of seizure, dated 30th March, 1985, though at Para 4(1) of the said guideline, it is stated that the grant of reward cannot be claimed by anyone as a matter of right; but it is not in dispute that a court has jurisdiction to decide whether such discretion has been exercised arbitrarily or in accordance with law. Learned single Judge noticed the admitted position relating to information provided by respondent/writ petitioner on 9th April, 1991, as was recorded by the 2nd respondent, Assistant Collector of Customs, Nagapattinam and subsequent seizur....