GULATI, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) THERE was a search and seizure by the IT Department in business premises of respondent Nos. ,4, and 5 and certain articles including ornaments and jewellery were seized. The petitioner says that the seized articles contained some ornaments pawned by him, and, therefore; those ornaments were to liable to be seized. He accordingly made an application on 18th Jan., 1974 addressed to the ITO, Company Circle, Kanpur requesting him to return him the ornaments pawned by him under S. 132(7) of the IT Act, 1961. The ITO acknowledged this application and called upon the petitioner to produce documentary evidence in support of his contentions as also his books of accounts. 31s Jan., 1974 was the date fixed for compliance. The petitioner's allegation is that in spite of the pendency of the application, the IT authorities, namely, the respondents No. 1 and 2 started returning the seized articles to the respondent Nos. 3 to 5. He thereupon filed the present writ petition. The writ petition was admitted on 26th March, 1974 and the following interim order was passed:- "Issue notice. Meanwhile, the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 will not release the 'Ganth' bearing the name of the petitioner in favour of respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5," 3. The grievance of the petitioner before us is that in spite of the stay order passed by this Court respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are still releasing the seized articles in favour of respondent nos. 3,4 and 5 and that his application under S. 132(7) referred to above has not yet been disposed of. Mr. Deokinandan, the learned counsel for the Department first tried to say that the application has since been disposed of. As there was no categorical statement to this effect in the counter- affidavit, he changed his position and submitted that the application was not maintainable and the goods having been released, it was no longer necessary for the ITO to dispose of application. In our opinion, the stand taken by the learned counsel is thoroughly unjustified. The petitioner is a person interested in the controversy. His application under S. 132(7) was acknowledged by the ITO, who asked the petitioner to produce evidence to substantiate the allegations contained in the application. In these circumstances it was incumbent upon the ITO to dispose of the application. The application cannot be ignored. We express no opinion as to whether the application of the petitioner is maintainable or not. That is a matter to be decided by the ITO but what we do feel is that the ITO is not justified in ignoring the application. Once an application is made it is the duty of the ITO to dispose it of according to law so that the aggrieved person can seek his legal remedy.
(3.) WE accordingly allow this petition and direct the respondent No. 1, namely, the ITO, Company Circle, Kanpur to dispose of the application of the petitioner dt. 18th Jan., 1974 in accordance with law after giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The petitioner is entitled to costs from the respondent No. 2.;