TMI Blog1967 (1) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ₹ 1,17,000.00 annum from the 9th July, 1966, till pay with interest thereon at 6 per cent per ment; (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 the records of the case and the order passed by the second respondent under section 132 (5) and after going into the question of the legality t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 2nd respondent to this petition (1st Income-tax Officer. A-III Ward, Bombay) as per the authorisation issued by the 1st respondent (the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-II. Bombay), under section 132 (1) of the Income-tax Act 1961. During the searches in Question, several docume ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ehalf of the petitioner is that the money seized by the 2nd respondent, at any rate that portion of the money, thai 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 not become a part and parcel of the Consolidated Fund of India. If the petitioner's contention, that the searches and seizures in question are inval ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rnment 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 R. 1 of O. 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 cl. (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 State if the question of law concerns a State Government. '' Rule 2 of that Order provides that the Court may at any stage of the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ink 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. The Durgah Committee, Ajmer, AIR 1959 Raj 177. In paragraph 75 of the judgment, Papna, Ag. C. J., speaking for the Court, observed that ''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 the Union Government or the State Government desired to defend the prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. ( 6. ) It was urged on behalf of the petitioner that one of the reliefs asked by him is to declare that the 3rd respondent has no jurisdiction to hear the application filed by him under Sec. 132(11) to that relief the 3rd 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 3rd respondent, By that device, he cannot be permitted to impose jurisdiction on this Court. If he does not want the 3rd respondent to consider his application, it is open ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
