9911796707
TMI Blog1967 (3) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner, therefore, most respectfully prays : That this hon'ble Court be pleased : (a) to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction, or order under article 226 of the Constitution of India quashing the said search and seizure and ordering and directing the respondents to forthwith return to the petitioner the remaining files, documents and papers seized and carried away by them during the said search and seizure and the sum of Rs. 1,17,000 with interest thereon at 6 per cent. per annum from the 9th July, 1966, till payment ; (b) to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under article 226 of the Constitution of India, calling for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion under articles 14, 19(1)(f) and 31, beyond the legislative competence of the Union, in excess of the powers, and being colourable pieces of legislation ; (f) to issue an interim order and injunction in terms of sub-paragraph (c) above pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition ; (g) to order the respondents to pay to petitioner the costs of this petition ; and (h) to grant such other reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require." The material facts are these : On July 9 and 11, 1966, the petitioner's house and his business premises were searched by the second respondent to this petition (the First Income-tax Officer, A-III Ward, Bombay) as per the authorisation issued by the first respondent (the Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not a necessary party to the reliefs prayed for as against respondents Nos. 1 and 2. That much was not disputed before us. But what was said on behalf of the petitioner is that the money seized by the second respondent, at any rate that portion of the money that had been appropriated towards the tax due from the petitioner, has now gone to the Consolidated Fund of India. That fund is under the control of the Government of India. Therefore, the Central Government is a necessary party to this petition. We see no force in this contention. It is only that part of the revenue that has been validly realised, that becomes a part of the Consolidated Fund of India. Any and every sum of money, seized by an officer of the Central Government, does n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n a divorce proceeding under the Hindu Marriage Act, the validity of a provision in the Hindu Marriage Act is challenged, then the Central Government must be made a party to that proceeding. But that is not the law, as we understand it. At any rate, that is not the practice adopted in court. It is prescribed in rule 1 of Order 27A of the Civil Procedure Code that "in any suit in which it appears to the court that any such question as is referred to in clause (1) of article 132 read with article 147 of the Constitution is involved, the court shall not proceed to determine that question until after notice has been given to the Attorney-General for India if the question of law concerns the Central Government and to the Advocate-General of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e contention of Mr. Sharma. But in support of its conclusion, the court gave no reason. We do not think that those observations correctly lay down the law. On the other hand, we are in agreement with the view expressed by the Rajasthan High Court in Syed Hussain Ali v. Durgah Committee, Ajmer. In paragraph 75 of the judgment, Bapna, Acting C. J., speaking for the court, observed thus : "A contention was also raised by the respondents that as the vires of a Central Act were being challenged, the Union of India should have been impleaded as a party. This argument has no force. The petitioners do not claim any relief against the Central Government. Notices of the petition were served on the Attorney-General and the Advocate-General so that if ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hes and seizures effected. That being so, the rule of merger of the order of the lower authority in the order of the appellate authority does not apply to the facts of the present case. It was urged on behalf of the petitioner that one of the reliefs asked by him is to declare that the third respondent has no jurisdiction to hear the application filed by him under section 132(11) ; to that relief the third respondent is a necessary party ; that respondent's office is in Delhi ; hence this court has jurisdiction. This is a fallacious argument. It is the petitioner who invoked the jurisdiction of the third respondent. By that device, he cannot be permitted to impose jurisdiction on this court. If he does not want the third respondent to cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
