Dismissed

Karthikeyan T.K. v. the Commisioner of Central Excise & Cus.

Kerala HC9 Jun 2023WP(C)/129/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, who provided information leading to excise duty recovery, challenged an order denying his claim for the maximum final reward. The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that rewards are ex-gratia payments at the absolute discretion of the authority, and no statutory duty exists to compel payment beyond what was already sanctioned.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as the petitioner has no legal right to claim a reward, which is purely ex-gratia at the discretion of the authority.

Karthikeyan T.K. Vs the Commisioner of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 9^th DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 19TH JYAISHTA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 129 OF 2010

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

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

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

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

¶10

OTHER PRESENT:

¶11

BY SR.GP.SMT.VINITHA.B.

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.06.2023, THE COURT ON 09.06.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

WP(C)No.129 of 2010

¶14

¶15

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. , J

¶16

WP(C)No.129 of 2010

¶17

Dated this the 9th day of June, 2023

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

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.

¶20

The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:-

¶21

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

¶22

WP(C)No.129 of 2010

¶23

¶24

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.

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

¶28

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.

¶29

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 exgratia 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

¶30

¶31

¶32

was already paid to him, the writ petition should necessarily fail, and accordingly, the same is dismissed.

¶33

Sd/- MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., JUDGE

dlk/6.6.2023

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 129/2010

¶38

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶39

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

Karthikeyan T.K. v. the Commisioner of Central Excise & Cus.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karthikeyan T.K. v. the Commisioner of Central Excise & Cus.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

George Elias and Associates Vs Vimala .v.R

Maya P.Nayar Vs Jayasree S.

Lathika Vs the Vilalge Officer, Kottathara

Cisly C.K. Vs the Regional Officer, Cbse Chennai

Devarajan Vs Thanneermukkom Grama Panchayath

M/S Mecpro Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Alangad Grama Panchayath