R K RANGANATHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Order of the Court is as follows :- 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.

(2.) 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 off-loading 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.3It 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.

(3.) 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 2645.9In 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.