Karthikeyan T.K vs The Commisioner Of Central Excise ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 6039 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
     FRIDAY, THE 9th DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 19TH JYAISHTA, 1945
                       WP(C) NO. 129 OF 2010
PETITIONER:

             KARTHIKEYAN T.K.
             S/O.LATE KRISHNANKUTTY,,
             VISHNU MANA, C.M.C.29,,
             CHERTHALA P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA.
             BY ADV SRI.N.R.CHANDRASEKHARAN


RESPONDENTS:

     1       THE COMMISIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE &CUSTOMS,,
             OFFICE OF THE CALICUT COMMISSIONER,,
             C.R.BUILDING, MANANCHIRARA, CALICUT.
     2       THE COMMISSIONER OF THE CENTRAL EXICSE
             AND CUSTOMS, OFFICE OF THE KOCHI COMMISSIONERATE,,
             C.R.BUILDING, I.S.PRESS ROAD,,
             ERNAKULAM, COCHI-18.
     3       GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
             REP. BY SECRETARY, CENTRAL EXCISE OF CUSTOMS,
             DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI.
             BY ADVS.
             SMT.PREETHA S. NAIR, SC, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE &
             CUSTO
             SRI.JOHN VARGHESESCCEN.BOARD OF EXCIS
             SMT.PREETHA S. NAIR, SC, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE
             amp CUSTO


OTHER PRESENT:

             BY SR.GP.SMT.VINITHA.B.



     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   02.06.2023,    THE   COURT   ON    09.06.2023   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C)No.129 of 2010
                                                   2



                             MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J
                         ......................................................
                                 WP(C)No.129 of 2010
                      ................................................................
                       Dated this the 9th day of June, 2023


                                          JUDGMENT

Through this writ petition, the petitioner challenges Ext.P12

communication dated 22.5.2009 and Ext.P13 order of the Reward

Committee dated 20.5.2009 denying the final reward to the petitioner

and also for a prayer to sanction the maximum limit of the final award

to the petitioner on the basis of Ext.P10 judgment of this Court.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition

are as follows:-

The petitioner is an informant regarding an excise duty evasion

before the Central Excise Department. In furtherance of the

information given by him, the department recovered a sum of Rs.85

lakh, and going by Clause 4(1) of Ext.R1(a) guidelines issued by the

Government, the informants are eligible for a reward up to 20% of

the net sale proceeds of the seized goods + the duty evaded + fine

and the penalty. The petitioner submits that he was paid only an

advance reward of Rs.5 lakh, which was less than 10%, and demands WP(C)No.129 of 2010

what is due to him. Petitioner questioned the same by filing

WP(C)No.26466 of 2003, and by judgment dated 13.01.2009, this

Court directed the department to reconsider the issue of payment of

further reward in accordance with the Government guidelines.

Pursuant to the above direction, the respondent considered the

matter and found that the quantum of rewards is the discretion of the

committee and the Collector of Customs. The petitioner filed a

contempt of court case before this Court alleging non-compliance

with the Judgment, wherein this Court held that the remedy of the

petitioner was to challenge the order of the Reward Committee

appropriately, and the decision thus taken, denying the reward, is

challenged in this writ petition.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the

respondents pointing out that Ext.P13 has been issued in accordance

with Ext.P9 guidelines and Ext.P10 judgment of this Court, and the

decision of the Reward Committee is taken after considering all the

relevant aspects. It is also pointed out that Ext.P12 is only a

communication sent to the petitioner that conveys the decision

arrived at in Ext.P13 by the Reward Committee. All the factors

necessary for deciding the quantum payable to the petitioner were

reckoned. An amount of Rs.5 lakh paid to the petitioner is adequate

full, and final. The reference to Rs.17 lakh as the total amount of WP(C)No.129 of 2010

reward was made solely in the context of determining the level/

composition of the reward sanctioning authority, which as per Ext.P9

guidelines, is to be fixed on the basis of the maximum amount that

they can be sanctioned in a case when all the required conditions are

satisfied.

4. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides and

having considered the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of

India and others v. C.Krishna Reddy in Civil Appeal No.7127 of

1999 dated 18.12.2003, I am not inclined to accept the contentions on

behalf of the petitioner. The Supreme Court, in the said judgment,

clearly held that by the very nature of things, no one has a legal right

to claim a reward. The scheme itself shows that it is purely an ex-

gratia payment subject to guidelines and may be granted at the

absolute discretion of the competent authority, and no one can claim

the same as a matter of right. In such circumstances, a writ of

mandamus cannot be issued as it applies only in a case where there is

a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned, and there is a

failure on the officer's part to discharge that obligation. In the

absence of anything showing a statutory requirement that imposes a

legal duty, the writ compelling the authorities to do something

cannot be issued. In such circumstances and in the absence of any

material to show the entitlement of the petitioner to more than what WP(C)No.129 of 2010

was already paid to him, the writ petition should necessarily fail, and

accordingly, the same is dismissed.

Sd/- MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., JUDGE

dlk/6.6.2023 WP(C)No.129 of 2010

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 129/2010

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION DATED 20.05.1993 OF THE PETITIONER Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER C.NO.V/85/20/1/90-

CX.ADJ-ADJ DATED 13.7.1990 OF THE ASSISTANT COLLECTOR(PREV) Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 4.7.95 OF THE PETITIONER TOGETHER WITH A COPY OF 'NOTE' DATED 10.02.1993 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER (ORIGINAL) NO.38/93 DATED 30.11.93 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE SANCTION ORDER DATED 24.01.1996 TOWARDS ADVANCE REWARD FROM THE BUDJET ALLOTMENT Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 6.2.1996 REGARDING THE PAYMENT OF ADVANCE REWARD.

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER C.NO.IV/06/50/2002/PREV/6603 DATED 31.7.2003 DENYING FINAL REWARD.

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.8.2007 IN WP(C)NO.26466/2003 Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE FUIDELINES DATED 16.4.2004 (EXT.R1(a)] Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.01.2009 IN WP9C)NO.26466/2003 Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 20.03.2009 AND THE PETITION IA NO.4280 OF 2009 IN WP(C)NO.26466 OF 2003, FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS.

Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER (COMMUNICATION) C.NO.IV/06/50/2002/PREV/1623 DATED 22.05.2009 DENYING FINAL REWARD.

Exhibit P13 ORDER OF THE REWARD COMMITTEE DATED 20.05.2009 Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.09.2009 IN CON.CASE.NO.1076 OF 2009