Judgment

B. K. MUKHERJEA, J. : These four consolidated appeals, which have come before us, on a certificate granted by the High Court of Punjab under Article 133 (1) (c) of the Constitution, are directed against one common judgment of a Division Bench of that court dated the 10th August 1950, by which the learned Judges dismissed four analogous petitions, presented on behalf of the different appellants, presented on behalf of the different appellants, claiming reliefs under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, in respect of certain Income Tax investigation proceedings commenced against them under Act XXX of 1947.

It appears that a partnership firm carrying on business under the name and style of K. S. Rashid & son was started on the 5th of May 1934, the partners being three in number to wit K. S. Rashid Ahmed, Saeed Ahmed, his son, and Mrs. Zafar Muhammed, his mother. Mrs. Zafar Muhammed died on the 7th of January 1946 and as a result of her death the partnership stood dissolved. Immediately on the day following, that is to say on the 8th of January 1946, a new firm was started bearing the same name, with the two surviving partners of the original firm and one Saeeda Begum, a daughter of K. S. Rashid, as the third partner.

On the 31st of December 1947, the Central Government referred the cases of this firm, as well as of the individuals constituting it, to the Income Tax Investigation Commission for enquiry and report under section 5 of Act XXX of 1947, presumably on the ground that there had been substantial evasion of payment of income-tax in these cases. The authorised official appointed under section 5(4)(3) of the Act, who figures as respondent no. 2 in all these appeals, in due course started investigation in these cases and the appellant s complaint is, that contrary to the provisions of the Act, he extended his investigation to a period subsequent to the 31st March 1943 up to which date the income-tax assessment in all these cases was completed.

A petition embodying this complaint was made to the authorised official on the 8th of April 1949, but no order was passed on the petition, as the Commission was expecting an early change of law in this respect. The law was amended by an Ordinance dated the 5th of July 1949, but the appellants still contended that the amendment was neither retrospective in its operation, nor did it enable the authorised official to carry on his investigation beyond the 31st March 1943. The account books, however, were shown to the official under protest. On the 17th September 1949, three applications were filed before the Commission, one with regard to the affairs of Mrs. Zafar Muhammed stating that no investigation could take place in regard to her as she was already dead; the second with regard to the affairs of Saeeda Begum on the ground that she being a new partner and not having been assessed before, was not subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission; while the third application was to the effect that the new firm, which came into existence on the 8th of January 1946, could not have its affairs enquired into at all under the provisions of the Act.

After that, in June 1950 four miscellaneous petitions were filed, (being C. M. cases Nos. 259 to 262 of 1950) on behalf of the appellants, before the High Court of Punjab, and the prayers made therein were of a three-fold character. It was prayed in the first place that a writ of prohibition might be issued to the Commission and the authorised official directing them not to proceed with the investigation of cases referred to the Commission under section 5 of Act XXX of 1947. The second prayer was for a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the proceedings already commenced. The third and the alternative claim was that the proceedings before the Commission might be revised under Article 227 of the Constitution and suitable orders passed as the justice of the case would require.

Upon these petitions, rules were issued on the 25th of Ju