JOSE THOMAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, claiming to be an informer to the authorities concerned in respect of the illegal ganja cultivation in Kumbakkallu area in Idukki District, claims a sum of Rs. 46 crores as reward. The petitioner claims to be a poor farmer belonging to Baisonvalley Village in Idukki District. The case put forward in the Original Petition is that a search was conducted on 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th March, 2002 in Kottakumpur Village, by the Excise Officials of Malappuram, on the information supplied by the petitioner and ganja plants which would yield crop of the value of Rs.70 crores were destroyed by the Excise Officials. In May, in another operation in Kottakumpur Village in Idukki District by the State Excise Division of Malappuram, on the information given by the petitioner, ganja plants having a potential yield of ganja worth Rs. 60 crores were destroyed. Though it is stated that the operation was in May, the year is not mentioned. Another averment in the Original Petition is that in yet another operation (the date, month or year is not mentioned in the Original Petition) headed by Smt. Sandhya, D.I.G. of Narcotic Cell, Thiruvananthapuram, ganja plants having a potential yield of more than Rs.100 crores were destroyed in various parts of Idukki District. Thus, the petitioner claims that he was responsible for the destruction of ganja plants which would have a potential yield worth Rs. 230 crores. Relying on Ext. P8 guidelines, dated 20.6.2001, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, the petitioner contends that he is entitled to the reward mentioned therein, the maximum amount of reward being 20% of the value of the goods.

(2.) Five sets of counter affidavits have been filed in the case. The fourth respondent (The Superintendent, Narcotic Control Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram) filed counter . affidavit dated 6.1.2003, in which it is stated that the petitioner was not an informer at all. In the counter affidavit dated 17.2.2003 filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 3, (Union of India represented by Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi and Narcotic Control Bureau, New Delhi) as well, any complicity of the petitioner as an informer is denied. In the counter affidavit dated 22.10.2003, filed on behalf of the second respondent (State of Kerala), it is stated thus:

(3.) The petitioner filed three reply affidavits dated 14.1.2004, 8.9.2004 and 9.3.2005 and denied the various allegations made by the respondents in their respective counter affidavits. Along with the reply affidavit dated 9.3.2005, Ext.P16 was produced, which is said to be a letter written and signed by one Thankachan Peter, a reporter of Kairali T.V. and handed over to the petitioner. The petitioner relies on that letter to show that he was the informer mentioned therein. A reading of Ext. P16 would not indicate so; on the other hand, it would indicate that Thankachan Peter was introduced to Jose Thomas, the petitioner, as the informer. Even if it is otherwise, Ext. Pl6 cannot be relied on at all since it is a self serving document. The petitioner also relies on Ext.P14 produced by him along with the reply affidavit dated 8.9.2004. Ext. P14 is a letter dated 23.9.2002, issued by the Under Secretary to Taxes (G) Department, to the petitioner intimating that at the time of fixing the reward by the Reward Committee, steps would be taken to enable the petitioner to get his appropriate share.