By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has approached this Court with following prayers:
"7.
A) Be pleased to allow this petition.
B) Be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent authorities to take appropriate decision upon the representation made by the petitioner dated 8.2.2010 as per the order passed by this Honourable Court in Special Civil Application No. 5930 of 2010 and appropriate directions be also issued upon the respondent authorities to make payment of remaining amount of reward i.e. 20% of the value of the seized gold to the petitioner in the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
C) Pending admission and till final disposal of the petition, be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent authorities to decide the representation made by the petitioner dated 8.2.2010 till the aforesaid petition is finally heard and decided."
In short the petitioner is seeking relief by way of appropriate direction and writ of mandamus to the authority for payment of reward amount.
Learned counsel for respondent has placed on record two decisions and submitted that in view of the observations made by this Court as well as the Apex Court this writ petition cannot be maintained and the same is required to be dismissed.
Heard learned advocate for the parties and perused documents and the decisions cited at the bar. This Court is of the considered view that this petition is required to be dismissed for the following reasons, namely;
a) The petitioner cannot seek writ of mandamus time & again for non-compliance of the order, if any, and therefore, on this ground alone present petition is not maintainable.
b) Apart from the aforesaid reason, if one looks at the observations of this Court in case of D.D. Gandhi Vs. Union of India, reported in 2011 (273) E.L.T. 491 (Guj.), especially para no. 8, 9 and 12 of the judgment; and also the observations of the Apex Court in para no.12 in case of Union of India And Others Vs. K. Krishna Reddy, reported in (2003) 12 SCC 627, it can be said that this petition is not maintainable at all.
Observations of para no. 8, 9, & 12 made in 2011 (273) E.L.T. 491 (Guj), read as under:
"8.
The Apex Court in the case of D.G, Revenue Intelligence & Invest. V. Amrit Lal Mehta reported in 2007 (220) E.L.T. 9 (S.C.) has held as under in paragraph 7 of the judgment:
"7.
However, considering the fact that it has been held by this Court in the cases of Union of India & Ors. v. C.Krishna Redy reported in [(2003) 10 SCALE 1050] as well as in Union of India v. R. Padmanabham reported in [(2003) 7 SCC 270] and in the Reward Scheme that there is no vested right in the person to claim a reward and that the payment can, at the highest, be an ex gratia payment, there is absolutely no justification to grant interest on such ex gratia payment."
9. That apart, the issue involved in the present petition is squarely covered in the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India V. C. Krishna Reddy reported in 2004 (163) E.L.T. 4 (S.C.). In paragraphs 13 and 14 of the judgment, the Apex Court held as under:
"13.
It is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that a Writ of Mandamus can be granted only in case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is failure on the part of the officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief function of the writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction. Therefore, in order that a mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that there is a statute which imposed a legal duty and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance.(See Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fisherman Co-Operative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh - AIR 1977 SC 2149 para 15, Kekhraj Satram Dass Lalvani v. Deputy Custodian-cum-Managing Officer, AIR 1966 SC 334 and Dr. Umakant Saran v. State of Bihar - AIR 1973 SC 964).
10xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 11xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
12. In view of catena of decisions of the Apex Court and well settled position of law, grant of reward is an ex gratia and there is no vested right in any person to claim a reward as a matter of right. The respondents in the instant case were not performing any statutory duty imposed upon them and, therefore, it cannot be said that there is failure on their part to discharge any statutory obligation warranting exercise of writ jurisdiction to compel performance of such duties prescribed by any statute. The policy of reward is only a 'scheme' and not a 'statute'".
Observations of Apex Court in para no.12 made in (2003) 12 SCC 627 read as under:
"12.
The scheme or the policy of the Government of India dated 30-3-1985 shows that the authority competent to grant the reward, while taking a decision regarding the entitlement of the person concerned has to keep many factors in his mind like specificity and accuracy of the information, the risk and trouble undertaken, the extent and nature of the help rendered by the informer, whether information gives clues of the persons involved in smuggling or their associates, the difficulty in securing the information, the risk involved for the government servants in working out the case and whether apart from seizure of contraband goods, the owners/organisers/financiers/racketeers have been apprehended. The scheme further mentions that reward is an ex gratia payment and subject to the guidelines and may be granted on the absolute discretion of the competent authority and further that no one can claim the reward as a matter of right. The High Court in writ jurisdiction cannot examine or weigh the various factors which have to be taken into consideration while deciding a claim regarding grant of reward. These are matters exclusively within the domain of the authorities of the Department as they alone can weigh and examine the usefulness or otherwise of the information given by the informer. In the writ petition filed by the respondent, no details had been given on the relevant issues. If the grant of reward cannot be claimed as a matter of right, it is not understandable as to how a writ of mandamus can be issued commanding the Government to give a particular amount by way of reward. Though this specific plea was taken in paras 18 and 21 of the counter-affidavit, yet neither the learned Single Judge nor the Division Bench adverted to this aspect of the matter."
This being the second ground on which the petition merits dismissal and hence it is dismissed. Notice discharged. No costs.
[ S.R. BRAHMBHATT, J ] /vgn Top