DWIVEDI, J. - (1.) THESE petitions are connected together as they raise a common question of law. A learned Single Judge, before whom these petitions were listed for hearing, has referred them to a large Bench for decision. They have been listed before us for hearing. In the Petition No. 3605, the petitioners are : (1) Hindustan Metal Works (hereinafter called the firm), (2) Mrs. Uma Lal, (3) Mr. Tarachand Agrawal and (4) Mr. Jawahar Lal; the respondents are (1) The Commissioner of Income-tax, U. P., and eight Income-tax Officers. One of the Income-tax Officers is of Meerut, two of Aligarh and five of Agra. The Superintendent of Police, Aligarh, is the tenth respondent. In the Writ Petition No. 3606, the only petitioner is Sri Ram Babu Lal. The respondents are the same as the respondents in the first writ petition. In the Writ Petition No. 3607, the sole petitioner is the Bijli Cotton Mills (P.) Ltd., Hathras (hereinafter called the company). The respondents are the same as in the first petition. In the Writ Petition No. 1691, the petitioner is Messrs. Vishwanath Seth. The respondents are : (1) the Income-tax Officer, A-Ward, Varanasi, (2) the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Varanasi, and (3) the Commissioner of Income-tax, U. P.
(2.) THE petitioners in the Writ Petition Nos. 3605, 3606 and 3607 are interconnected. Mrs. Uma Lal is the wife of Sri Ram Babu Lal. He is the brother of Messrs. Tara Chand Agrawala and Jawahar Lal. He is the managing director of the company. Mrs. Uma Lal and Messrs. Tara Chand Agrawala and Jawahar Lal are the partners of the firm. The firm has its head office in Hathras. It has also its branches in Calcutta and Jullunder. It carries on the business of manufacturing and selling non-ferrous metals and their alloys and castings. It is assessed to income-tax by the Income-tax Officer, A-Ward, Aligarh. At the point of time with which we are concerned in the first three cases, the third respondent was the Income-tax Officer of A-Ward. The company carries on the business of manufacturing and selling cotton yarn, newars, cardigans and civil and military tents, etc., and owns a cotton textile mill in Hathras. The mill is popularly known as the Bijli Mills.
(3.) THE allegations in the three cases are similar. Accordingly, we shall take up the Writ Petition No. 3605 of 1963 as the leading case. THE allegations in this petition are that the firm has always been paying income-tax regularly, that it has always produced such documents and account-books, etc., as were demanded by the Income-tax authorities and that it has never been found guilty o evasion of its tax liability. On July 2, 1963, the premises of the firm were searched by the respondents Nos. 2 to 10, the other employees of the income-tax department and some policemen. THE houses of Sri Ram Babu Lal and his wife and Sri Ram Babu Lals house was also searched on July 6, 1963. THE premises of the company were also searched on July 2, 1963. THE search was arbitrary and indiscriminate. THE respondents seized a large number of documents arbitrarily and indiscriminately without any regard to their relevancy. THE search was mala fide and on the instigation of one Heera Lal, who was inimical to Sri Ram Babu Lal. THE Commissioner of Income-tax authorised the search without applying his mind to the fact whether it was necessary. He did not record any reasons for authorising the search. He authorised the search on the behest of the Directorate of Inspection (the Central Board of Revenue), Delhi, No inventory of the seized materials was prepared. The petitions contain some more allegations but we have left them out, for the pleas based on them were no pressed before us. We have mentioned only such allegations as were made the foundation of arguments by counsel for the petitioners. In the Writ Petition No. 1691 of 1965, the petitioner is a partnership firm. It carries on the business of speculation in bullion and cotton etcetera; it also deals in bullion and gold and silver ornaments. It has three shops, two in Jaunpur and one in Varanasi. Its head office is in Jaunpur. On February 10 and 11, 1965, the two shops and the hose of the partners in Jaunpur were searched by the income-tax authorities. On February 11 and 12, the shop in Varanasi was searched. Books of accounts, bullion and ornaments were seized. The cash and old silver coins were also seized. The search and the seizure were arbitrary and indiscriminate. On April 14, 1965, the petitioner received a notice dated April 12, 1965, regarding determination of the estimated tax liability under section 132(1B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act). April 17 was the date fixed for hearing. The notice was issued after the expiry of the statutory period prescribed by rule 112A of the Income-tax Rules. Accordingly, the proceedings are illegal. In all these petitions the main prayers are that the search and seizure should be declared illegal and unconstitutional and that the seized articles should be returned to them. In the Writ Petition No. 1691, there is also a prayer that the respondents should be prohibited from proceeding further with the hearing of the case under section 132(1B). ;