AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.—The petitioner seeks for an issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to pay the reward to the
petitioner, as per Circular No. F. No. R. 13011/5/88 Ad. V., dated 7-6-1988.
The petitioner claims that he was a registered informer of the Customs Department; that in April, 1991, he came to know about a smuggling
activity to smuggle 99 silver bars into India from Singapore; that as per the information he received, the smuggled goods were likely to be off-
loaded near Tuticorin Port; that he was able to get the information about the method to be adopted by the persons concerned to smuggle the
contraband into India; that after satisfying himself about the genuineness of the information, he met the 8th respondent on 7-4-1991 and informed
him that 99 silver bars are likely to be smuggled into India by a vessel called ""AL-KARA"" near Tuticorin Port or its outer anchorage; that the 8th
respondent took him to the 7th respondent, who recorded his detailed and accurate information on 9-4-1991, a copy of the information recorded
was also furnished to him; that the 4th respondent by his letter dated 9-4-1991 forwarded the gist of the information to the 6th respondent for
taking necessary action; that on 19-4-1991, when he contacted the 7th and 8th respondents, he was informed that though the vessel Al-Kara was
sited as per the information furnished by the 6th respondent, the same could not be intercepted as the vessel was in the mid sea and the petitioner
was further informed that due to Coast Guard movement, the vessel crew got alerted and sailed straight to the port of Male without offloading the
contraband. The petitioner claims that he also informed that the vessel may discharge the contraband between Sayalkudi and Thiruchandur.
According to the petitioner, when he contacted the 5th respondent, whether to contact the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, he was advised
that such an action may expose his anonymity and thereby causing great risk to his life.
It transpire that subsequently on 19-6-1991, the Vessel Al-Kara was intercepted by the Coast Guard on board ""Naiki Devi"" along with the
D.R.I. officials. Though initially the Master of the vessel denied possession of any contraband, on subsequent questioning, revealed contraband of
99 silver bars hidden in a container near anchor chain room, covered by tarpaulin. It will have to be stated that the manner of concealment tallied
with the first information furnished by the petitioner, which was also recorded by the 7th respondent on 9-4-1991. It is claimed that thereafter, the
D.R.I, officials seized the 99 bars of contraband silver. The petitioner states that on 20-6-1991, when he came to know about the seizure from the
vessel Al-Kara, he contacted the 7th and 8th respondents and requested for payment of the reward amount for having furnished the accurate and
detailed information, which resulted in the seizure of the contraband. The petitioner is also stated to have claimed for part payment of the reward
amount i.e. 50% of the total reward amount, as per the new guidelines. According to the petitioner, the fourth respondent wrote a letter on 21-6-
1991 to the sixth respondent recommending release of the reward amount; that there was no response from the sixth respondent; that the seventh
respondent was therefore deputed by the fourth respondent to meet the sixth respondent and in such meeting, the sixth respondent stated to have
told the seventh respondent that the information furnished by the petitioner was 100% correct. The petitioner also contended that the sixth
respondent informed to the seventh respondent that apart from the information furnished by the petitioner, no other information was available in that
case. The petitioner also stated that since several of his representations were not replied, he was obliged to approach this court by way of filing this
writ petition.
The claim of the petitioner was resisted initially by the 3rd and the 6th respondents when a counter was filed on their behalf on 12-2-1997.
Subsequently, an additional counter was filed on 4-7-1997 sworn to by the Assistant Director of the office of the 3rd respondent, claiming to be
filed on behalf of the respondents 1-6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that when the office of the respondents 3 to 6 have
nothing to do with the office of the respondents 2, 4 and 5 in the absence of any specific counter having been filed by those respondents, what ever
stated in the additional counter will not reflect the correct stand of respondents 2,4 and 5. According to the petitioner, having regard to certain
correspondence exchanged between the 4th respondent and respondents 3 and 6, the additional counter stated to have been filed on behalf of all
the respondents 1 to 6, will not be in order.
The sum and substance of the stand of the respondents, both in the main counter as well as in the additional counter is that though the original
information furnished by the petitioner might have some co-relation to the seizure effected on 19-6-1991, according to the third respondent, a
senior Intelligence Officer of the Madras Zone working at Trichy gathered independent information through one Saravanan, a landing agent of
Tuticorin and the whole seizure came to be effected only based upon the information gathered by that Senior Intelligence Officer and therefore, the
seizure had no nexus with the information furnished by the petitioner in April, 1991. The respondents 3 to 6 therefore claimed that whatever may
be the information furnished by the petitioner in the month of April, 1991, and pursuant to the information, when no seizure was effected and the
seizure was effected on 19-6-1991, based upon an independent information gathered by one of the officials of the 6 respondents, the petitioner
was not eligible for any payment of reward amount.
In the above stated background, the learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Habibulla Basha, after referring to the revised guidelines relating to
grant of rewards to informers and Government servants in case of seizures, dated 30-3-1985 contended that though para 4(1) of the said guideline
would state that grant of reward cannot be claimed by any one as a matter of right, courts have held that even such a discretion cannot be
arbitrarily exercised; that in view of the certain admitted position relating to the information provided by the petitioner on 9-4-1991, as recorded by
the 7th respondent and the subsequent seizure made on 19-6-1991, which tallied with almost every minute information furnished by the petitioner
on 9-4-1991 and having regard to the stand of the 4th respondent as disclosed in various communications addressed to the 3rd respondent when
the seizure effected on 19-6-1991 was solely based on the information furnished by the petitioner on 9-4-1991, there was absolutely no
justification for the 3rd respondent in not granting the reward amount to the petitioner, as per the guidelines. The learned Counsel relied upon the
judgment of learned single judge of this court dated 22-9-1998 in W.P. No. 4523 of 1996 (C. Krishna Reddy v. The Union of India, rep. By
Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Dept. of Revenue and Ors.), which was also confirmed by the Division Bench in their order dated 22-9-1999 in
W.A. No. 1431 of 1998 2000 (123) E.L.T. 499 (Mad.), to contend that in similar circumstances, this court held that the reward amount though
not in full, a part of it should be paid to the informer pending finalisation of the reward amount payable, after the conclusion of the relevant
proceedings.
As against the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. V.T. Gopalan, learned Additional Solicitor General, would mainly
contend that when there is a dispute with regard to the question as to whether the seizure was effected solely on the basis of the information
furnished by the petitioner on 9-4-1991 or based on the independent information gathered by one of the officers of the 3rd respondent and where
consideration of such dispute would involve appreciation of various material facts. It would not be appropriate to consider the claims of the
petitioner in this proceeding for the purpose of granting the relief as prayed for by him. In other words, the learned Additional Solicitor General
fairly contend that the state is not intending to take the extreme contention that the reward amount to the informer cannot be claimed as matter of
right as provided in Clause 4(1) of the guideline, though such claim can still be turned down on specific grounds, namely as to whether the
concerned department was satisfied that such information was of no use to the department under the facts and circumstances of the case. The
learned Additional Solicitor General, therefore, contended that in the case on hand, similar such situation prevails and hence the claims of the
petitioner cannot be countenanced. The learned Additional Solicitor General relied upon AIR 1997 993 (SC) for the proposition that where
disputed questions of facts are involved, the writ petition should be dismissed at the threshold and normally High Court does not go into or
adjudicate upon the disputed questions of facts. He also relied upon Visakhapatnam Port Trust and Another Vs. M/s. Ram Bahadur Thakur Pvt.
Ltd., etc., paragraph 13 for the same proposition in support of his contention that in claims of this nature the High Court should not venture to
decide the relief to be granted and that it should be left to the State to decide for itself, having regard to the fact that such claims are to be
determined depending upon the decision to be arrived at by the State, by taking into account various allied circumstances.
Considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Solicitor General, as contended by
the Additional Solicitor General, where there are serious disputed questions of fact involved, this court cannot venture to find out which one is true
in order to arrive at a decision to grant certain relief to the parties to come before court while unleasing the said question. In the case on hand, I
find that the information furnished by the petitioner to the 7th and 8th respondents was recorded by the 7th respondent on 9-4-1991 and the same
was passed on to the 6th respondent at Madras. In that recorded information, the vital facts noted are that a Pakistani vessel by name ""Al-Kara"" in
full Black colour all over, with funnel in red colour with the name of the ship written in white colour with Goanese Captain by name De Silva and
Pakistani Chief Engineer by name Akbar, left Singapore on 2-4-1991; that the ship has got a old container close to the Anchor room covered by
tarpaulin; that inside the container a wooden plank with slots having 99 silver bars covered by gunny with a handle each bar weighing about 35 kgs
were concealed, and that the vessel would come to the outer anchorage of Tuticorin Port where she will be met by a fishing boat or a catamaran
with the assistance of a Srilankan by name Bobby, through whom the silver bars would be unloaded from the ship and transported to the land. The
information also mentioned that the vessel instead of going to the Tuticorin Port may go any where between Sayligudi and Thiruchendur and try to
unload the silver bars in the boats arranged by Bobby. The other details about the ship had also been furnished and the approximate place within
which the ship is likely to reach Tuticorin region had also been mentioned. It has also been stated therein that the ship has got green or blue colour
flags with moon and star inscribed therein and the call sign of the vessel as SAR Victor 2645.
In this context it is relevant to note that after the vessel was subsequently seized on 19-6-1991, the fourth respondent appeared to have sent a
communication dated 21-6-1991 to one Mr. Balakrishnan Nair, the sixth respondent herein about the reward amount to be paid to the informer in
view of the seizure effected on 19-6-1991 on the basis of the information furnished by him through the 4th respondent and that no reply was
received to the said communication from the 6th respondent. One other communication has emanated from the 4th respondent on 5-8-1991 and
the reading of the said communication reveals that in the course of the discussion, the 6th respondent had with the 7th respondent, the 6th
respondent accepted the information passed on by the 4th respondent, as correct and that he would give 100% marks for the information. It also
reveals that the sixth respondent informed the 7th respondent that since the seizure was effected on the return journey of the vessel, he expressed
his inability to give any credit to the information. It also disclosed that the 6th respondent wrote a communication on 24-7-1991 to the effect that
the seizure on 19-6-1991 was based on entirely a different source and the same was not effected on the basis of the information furnished by the
customs officials. There is one other communication which also emanated from the office of the 4th respondents dated 17-12-1991 to the first
respondent wherein the various other factors have been high lighted by the fourth respondent and it was insisted that the informer attached to the
office of the 4th respondent deserved to be encouraged by giving suitable reward and he should not be ignored simply because he did not provide
further information with the fourth respondent after April, 1991. It was also stated therein that even if the informer was not eligible for the full
quantum of reward, he should still be given suitable reward as the third respondent had admittedly no other informer in this case.
Therefore, the question that remains to be considered is whether the contention raised on behalf of the respondents, in particular the
respondents 3 and 6 that there are disputed questions of fact to be analysed and decided before ever countenancing the claim of the petitioner. In
the additional counter stated to have been filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 6, a reference has been made to a communication from the first
respondent to the 3rd respondent, wherein the views expressed by the 3rd respondent in his letter dated 29-2-1992 were accepted in the letter
dated 29-2-1992, the 3rd respondent claimed that the seizure in question was effected on the basis of specific intelligence collected and developed
by senior Intelligence Officer DRI authority, during May and June, 1991, that the said senior Intelligence Officer did not have the information
received by the fourth respondent during April, 1991 and that whatever information received in April, 1991 from the third respondent was handled
by the Coast Guard vessel from Cochin along with the Officers of the Kerala unit of the third respondent, which did not result in any seizure and
therefore, the said information received by the fourth respondent did not deserve to be considered.
In the above stated back ground, the learned Additional Solicitor General would contend that the judgment of the learned Single Judge which
was confirmed by the Division bench will have no application inasmuch as in the said case, there was no dispute about the information furnished by
the informer while in the case on hand, there is a dispute as to whether the seizure was effected based on the information furnished by the
petitioner. It is relevant to note that the informers who are attached with the various vulnerable departments like Customs, Directorate of Revenue
Intelligence etc., take serious risks when they furnish such critical informations to the officials. In fact, the respondents make wide publicity to help
the departments like Customs and Central Excise to catch hold of smugglers, drug traffickers and tax evaders. Detection of such social evils which
are much more dangerous to the society are always committed with high amount of confidentiality. Therefore, unless the informer furnish such
secret information. It would be very difficult for the departments to unearth such crimes and bring them to book. The very fact that the State has
come forward to recognize such informations provided to it and also reward such informers disclose that such informations are very vital for the
detection of such large scale crimes which in some cases deprive the nation of its substantial revenue. When the informers take very high risks while
furnishing such informations, it is legitimate for such informers to expect suitable rewards when the information furnished by them result in success
by the ultimate seizure or detection of the crime. When the reward to such informers are announced, State should not be sceptical in dealing with
such informations furnished by the informers where there is no scope for any dispute about the information furnished by the informer and the minute
details of the information tallies with the ultimate seizure effected.
In the case on hand, a reading of the information recorded on 9-4-1991 and the ultimate seizure effected by the officials of the third
respondents, reveals that every bit of information furnished by the petitioner tallied with the ultimate seizure made. It is also admitted by the 3rd
respondent that at the instance of the petitioner, the 4th respondent did furnish the information on 9-4-1991. Though it was claimed in the counter
affidavit that on a surveillance by the Coast Guard, Cochin between 9-4-1991 and 12-4-1991 no such vessel was sighted by them, the
communication addressed by the 4th respondent to the 6th respondent on 5-8-1991 disclose that the 6th respondent tacitly admitted to the 7th
respondent that the vessel was sighted by the Coast Guard, but they could not intercept the same as it was in the mid sea and that later they came
to understand that the vessel possibly got alerted and therefore, without going to Tuticorin Port proceeded straight to Male Port. It is also
disclosed in the said communication that the 6th respondent stated to have accepted to the 7th respondent that the information of the 4th
respondent was correct and he would give 100% mark for the information. Significantly, the said official communication of the 4th respondent was
never disputed by the 3rd or the 6th respondent till this date, though they would attempt to come forward with a different version about the
information in the counter affidavit as well as in the additional counter affidavit. In this context, the contention of the learned Counsel for the
petitioner about the non-filing of any independent counter affidavit by the 7th and 8th respondents assumes significance.
When between two responsible departmental heads, namely the 3rd, 4th and the 6th respondents, correspondence were exchanged and when
the details contained in those correspondence are not disputed even as on date, I am of the view that due weight should be given to such
correspondence which has emanated from the office of such responsible departmental heads. Viewed in that respect the communication of the 4th
respondent addressed to the 3rd respondent as well as to the first respondent deserves greater weight. A perusal of those two communications
dated 5-8-1991 and 17-12-1991 in unambiguous terms state that but for the information furnished by the petitioner, there would have been no
scope for the 3rd and 6th respondents to lay their hands on the seizure in question, which was effected on 19-6-1991. It is futile for the 3
respondents to now contend that the information furnished through the 4th respondent did not fructify any result and that the ultimate seizure on 19-
6-91 was on the basis of an independent source of information. It is on record that the written down information dated 9-4-1991 was
communicated to the 6th respondent through the 4th respondent in the official routine and that the same was also acted upon. The said information
which was earlier in point of time namely in the month of April, 1991 disclose that the vessel was also likely to arrange for off-loading the
contraband near Sayalkudi and Tiruchendur. When the information furnished at the earliest point of time tallied in all respects with the seizure
merely going by the commtmication of the 3rd respondent dated 29-2-1992; it would not be justiciable to reject the claim of the petitioner on the
footing that the seizure was effected by relying upon a different source and not that of the petitioner.
I am of the view that such a stand seemed to have been taken only for the purpose of rejecting the claim of the petitioner and not based on any
bona fide stand. When the informers like the petitioner take extreme risk of their life and furnish such information, especially lured by the rewards
announced by the State, such legitimate expectations should not be scuttled based on such untenable stand. Therefore, I am of the view that the
respondents/State should have taken an upright stand and recognize the rightful claim of the petitioner and not attempt to deprive the petitioner of
the reward amount. As per the guidelines the informers are eligible for reward of 20% of the estimated market value of the contraband goods
seized Paragraph 5.1 of the revised guidelines, as communicated in the first respondents proceedings dated 30-3-1985 provided that an advance
reward could be paid to the informers upto 50% of the expected official reward, immediately on seizure in respect of various categories including
silver and that what ever advance reward paid, could be adjusted while making payment of final reward. The learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner stated that based on the information furnished by the petitioner, adjudicating proceedings have also been concluded. Therefore in fitness
of things the reward payable to the petitioner by virtue of the seizure effected on 19-6-1991, which was relatable and based only on the
information furnished by him, as recorded in the written information of the 4th respondent dated 9-4-1991, the petitioner is legally and justifiably
entitled for the reward amount to be paid as per the guidelines contained in the first respondent''s proceedings dated 30-3-1985. As I am of the
view that the stand of the respondent in particular the 3rd and 6th respondents that there were disputed questions of fact is without any basis and
that the whole seizure effected on 19-6-1991 was based only on the information furnished by the petitioner as contained in the written information
of the 4th respondent dated 9-4-1991. I am not in a position to accept the contentions of the learned Additional Solicitor General raised on behalf
of the respondents. Consequently, the claim of the petitioner deserves to be countenanced. The writ petition is therefore, allowed and the
respondents are directed to pay the reward to the petitioner as per the circular dated 7-6-1988, in and by which a partial modification of the
annexure to the instructions contained in the first respondent''s letter dated 30-3-1985 has been made with regard to the quantum of reward
payable to the informers and pay such reward within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed no
costs. Consequently, WMP No. 26429 of 1993 is also closed.