13. The question then is, were the respondents right in rejecting the petitioners claim for interim Reward altogether. The second question is whether given the circumstances of this case, were the respondents correct in arguing that what was provided was only „basic information‟ which disentitled the petitioner for any relief under the Reward Policy of 2001. Whilst, this Court cannot obviously enter into the arena of what kind of information would be useful as that would be a matter of executive Policy, at the same time what is apparent is that the petitioner provided certain vital link or information normally called a “tip off” which led to its „development‟ and further investigation by the respondents authorities. This is evident from the reply to the RTI queries provided to the petitioner herself when the respondents stated that „working‟ on a basic information that the unit of M/s JV Industries Pvt. Ltd was engaged in manufacturing copper Ingots, Copper Rods & Copper Wires and showing usage of nickel as an input which was not being used in the manufacture of their final product. The information was developed by SIO with the assistance of IO and some more documents were called for to verify the authentication of the basic information. This has been further elaborated in the reply to the RTI queries where it was stated that the information was given to Shri J. P. Singh, Inspector, who “Provided the input about the information to the officer at Sr. No. 5” i.e. Rajesh Tomar and “provided key-data to the officer at Sr. No.6” i.e. Pankaj Kudeshiya and “played a key role in arresting Shri Sushil Kumar Jain the prime accused. Attended to court related matters”.
