MUNI LAL VERMA,J. - (1.) THE circumstances, relevant and as alleged by the petitioners, leading to this writ petition may be briefly stated as under: In pursuance of the authorisation issued by the Director of Inspection (respondent No. 2) under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called "the Act"), Shri Rakesh Rattan, Income-tax Officer (respondent No. 3) and Shri Kulwant Singh (respondent No. 4) again an Income-tax Officer (hereinafter called the authorised officers), raided and searched the Jindal House (hereinafter called "the premises"), situate at Delhi Road, Model Town, Hissar, on June 6, 1974. The premises are the property of Shri Om Parkash Jindal, petitioner No. 1, He along with his wife, Smt Savitri Devi, has been residing in the ground floor of the premises while his son, Prithvi Raj Jindal, along with his wife, Smt. Sachita Devi, has been living in the upper storey of the premises. Each of the petitioners and their wives are income-tax assessees. During the aforesaid search, 31 items of ornaments and jewellery were found in the bed-cum-store room of Shri Om Parkash Jindal. An inventory, the copy of which is annexure "d-1", was prepared for the same. Seventeen items of ornaments and jewellery (shown in annexure "d-III" and (contained in a separate receptacle as stated by the petitioners) were recovered from another portion of the ground floor occupied by Shri Om Parkash Jindal. Another five items of ornaments and jewellery and currency notes of the value of Rs. 708 and 18 silver coins of rupee one each (shown in annexure "d-IV" and contained in another receptacle as represented by the petitioner), were also recovered from the portion of the premises in occupation of the petitioner, Shri Om Parkash Jindal. Four items of ornaments (shown in annexure "d-II") were found from the bedroom of Shri Prithvi Raj Jindal. The authorised officers placed all these ornaments and jewellery, etc. , in two boxes, sealed the same and then placed the said boxes in a Godrej almirah lying in the premises. It (Godrej almirah) was also locked and sealed. The keys of the said Godrej almirah as well as of the said two boxes were taken away by them, and they served the order (copy annexure "p-10") under Section 132 (3) of the Act upon Shri Om Parkash Jindal, directing him not to remove, part with or otherwise deal with the said jewellery, ornaments, etc. , without their previous permission. The statement of Shri Om Parkash Jiudal (copy annexure "p-9") was also recorded by them under Section 132 (4) of the Act, wherein he represented that 32 ornaments of annexure "d-I" belonged to his wife and the four ornaments of annexure "d-II" belonged to his snn and daughter-in-law and 17 items of ornaments of annexure "d-III" belonged to Shri Bajrang Lal who had placed the same with him for safe custody, and the 5 ornaments, G. C. notes and silver coins of annexure "d-TV" belonged to Chum Lal, who is the brother of Bajrang Lal, and had placed the same with him for safe custody, Shri S. Talwar (respondent No. 5), again an authorised officer, and Shri Rattan Lal (respondent No. 6), accompanied by a number of other officers and Shri B. K. Malhotra, approved Government valuer, reached the premises on July 12, 1974, with warrant of authorisation issued by the Director of Inspection. Shri Om Parkash Jindal was then away and Shri Prithvi Raj Jindal was present at the premises Under the directions of Shri S. Talwar, the seal of the Godrej almirah was broken and it was opened and the two sealed boxes were taken out. The seals of the said boxes were broken and the locks were opened. The ornaments and jewellery contained therein were valued by Shri B. K. Malhotra and after preparing the valuation of the same (vide annexure "p-II"), the said ornaments and jewellery were again put into the two steel boxes which were locked and then the same were placed in the wooden almirah fixed in the premises and the said almirah was locked and sealed and the keys were taken away by Shri S. Talwar. An order under Section 132 (3) of the Act directing that the aforesaid ornaments would not be removed or parted with or dealt with without his permission, was also served on Shri Prithvi Raj Jindal by Shri S. Talwar.
(2.) AGGRIEVED by all this, the petitioners approached this court through this writ petition for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the respondents to return and restore to them all the aforesaid items of jewellery, ornaments, etc. They impeached the authorisation issued by respondent No. 1 as illegal, stating that he had neither any credible information in his possession nor he had reason to believe that Shri Om Parkash Jindal, petitioner, was in possession of undisclosed jewellery or ornaments, and that he (respondent No. 1) had issued warrants of authorisation to search the premises and seized the ornaments, etc. , under the dictates of higher authorities for extraneous considerations, including political influences. They treated the acts of the authorised officers in placing the jewellery, ornaments, etc. , in two boxes, and placing the same with locks and seals on, in the Godrej almirah on June 6, 1974, and then placing the same in two boxes with locks in the wooden almirah embedded in the premises and sealing the same on July 12, 1974, as seizure and challenged it as illegal so far as it related to recovery of four items of ornaments (annexure "d-II") from the bedroom of Shri Prithvi Raj Jindal on the ground that his name did not figure in the warrant of authorisation. They impeached the acts of the authorised officers terming the same as seizure respecting the other ornaments, jewellery, etc. , on the ground that neither notice as envisaged by Rule 112a of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter called "the Rules"), had been given to the petitioners or to any one of them, within 15 days of the aforesaid seizure, nor any inquiry as contemplated by Section 132 (5) of the Act was instituted and no order had been passed within 90 days of the seizure. They impugned the orders recorded by the authorised officers under Section 132 (5) of the Act as illegal on the ground that the same had been actuated by extraneous considerations and were mala fide. Written statement, duly supported by her affidavit, was put in by Mrs. Vijiya Mohan Ram, Assistant Director of Inspection (Investigation) The material facts were admitted. She, however, controverted the allegations that the authorisation had been issued by the Director of Inspection or the orders recorded under Section 132 (3) of the Act had been made by the authorised officers for extraneous considerations or that the same were mala fide. It was pleaded that there was no seizure as contemplated by Sub-section (]) of Section 132 of the Act and, therefore, the question of issuance of notice under Rule 112a of the Rules or institution of inquiry under Section 132 (5) of the Act, or passing of an order thereunder did not arise and there had been credible information with the Director of Inspection warranting the issuance of authorisation to search the premises and seize the ornaments, etc. , and there was one warrant of authorisation and it was in pursuance of the same that the premises had been searched on June 6, 1974. The orders passed under Section 132 (3) of the Act could not be withdrawn, nor the seizure of the jewellery, ornaments, etc. , had been effected because Shri Om Parkash Jindal, petitioner, did not co-operate for substantiating bis statement that the 17 items of ornaments and jewellery of annexure "d-III" belonged to Bajrang Lal and 5 ornaments, G. C. notes and silver coins of annexure "d-IV" belonged to Chuni Lal, and that the premises (Jindal House) were one unit and the petitioners being father and son constituted one family and were residing therein as such.
(3.) THE submissions made by Shri B. S. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners, have four dimensions and these are: (1) That the authorisation issued by the Director of Inspection in favour of the authorised officers to search the premises and seize the ornaments, etc. , was illegal because the Director of Inspection had no information, much less credible, on the basis of which he could have reason to believe that Shri Om Parkash Jindal, petitioner, had in his possession ornaments and jewellery, which were undisclosed property. (2) That there had been, in fact, seizure of the ornaments, jewellery, etc. , and since neither notice of 15 days under Rule 112a of the Rules had been issued, nor inquiry as envisaged by Section 132 (5) of the Act had been instituted and no order had been passed thereunder within 90 days from the date of seizure, the retention of the ornaments, jewellery, etc. , by the respondents had become illegal. (3) That even if the acts of the authorised officers in sealing the ornaments and jewellery in the Godrej almirah, firstly, on June 6, 1974, and, secondly, in the wooden almirah embedded in the premises on July 12, 1974, are not considered as seizure, their aforesaid acts would be illegal having been actuated by extraneous and unlawful considerations. (4) That the search of the portion of the premises in occupation of Shri Prithvi Raj Jindal was illegal and, therefore, the recovery of four ornaments of annexure "d-II" from there was unwarranted as the name of Shri Prithvi Raj Jindal was not mentioned in the warrant of authorisation. ;