Judgment

DAS , ACTG.C. J. : This rule was issued on a petition filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution by one Purshottam Govindji Halai, a citizen of India, called upon the respondents to show cause why a writ in the nature of the writ of habeas corpus should not be issued by this Court Directing the Superintendent, House of Correction, Byculla, being the second respondent herein, to produce before this Court one Govindji Deoji Halai, the father of the petitioner, who is also a citizen of India, for the purpose of being released forthwith.

2. The facts which are not in dispute may be shortly stated as follows .The said Govindji Deoji Halai (hereinafter referred to as the "assessee") is the sole proprietor of a business carried on under the name and style of Indestro Sales and Service Co. at No. 50-52 Lohar Chawl Streel in the City of Bombay. Two private limited companies, namely, Indestro India Ltd., and Indestro Eastern Ltd., also carry on business and have their respective offices in the same premises. The assessee is said to have some 22 connection with the two companies the nature of which, however, is not quite clear on the record before us.

In respect of his own business of Indestro Sales and Service Co., the assessee was assessed to income-tax for the years 1943-44 to 1947-1948 and 1951-1952 by the third Income-tax Officer, C-1 Ward , Bombay, at and for Rs. 40,178-4-0, the assessee not having paid up the assessed amount of tax the Income-tax Officer on 10-4-1951 issued to the Additional Collector of Bombay, the first respondent herein, a recovery certificate under S. 46 (2) of the Income-tax Act. It may here be mentioned that the Indestro Eastern Ltd., was also assessed to income-tax at and for Rs. 1,92,000 and a recovery certificate was also issued by the Income-tax Officer to the Additional Collector of Bombay.

3. On 1-2-1954 the Additional Collector issued a notice of demand on the assessee for payment of the assessed amount of tax. No. payment having been made, the Additional Collector attached the goodwill and tenancy rights in the said premises by a warrant of attachment issued on 24-3-1954. The sale proclamation was issued on 15-1-1955. The sale was held on 25-2-1955 fetching a price of Rs. 33,000 and it was confirmed on 30-3-1955.

The sale proceeds not being sufficient to satisfy the assessed tax the Additional Collector on 7-6-1955 issued a notice under S. 13 of the Bombay City Land Revenue Act, 1876 requiring the assessee to appear before him in person on 16-6-1955 and show cause why he, the assessee, should not be apprehended and confined to civil jail in satisfaction of the said certified demand.

The assessee did not appear in person on the appointed day but on the next day, 17-6-1955, an Advocate acting on behalf of the assessee wrote a letter to the Additional Collector purporting to show cause why the assessee should not be arrested and sent to the civil jail. The contentions put forward on behalf of the assessee not being considered satisfactory the Additional Collector on 30-6-1955 issued a warrant for the arrest of the assessee under S. 13 of the Bombay City Land Revenue Act, 1876. The assessee was actually arrested on 1-7-1955.

4. On 8-7-1955 an application was made by the present petitioner to the Bombay High Court under Art. 226 complaining of the arrest of his father, the assessee, and praying for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus for the production and release of the assessee. A rule was issued by the High Court but eventually on 24-8-1955 the High Court (Chagla C. J. and Desai J.) discharged the rule*.

* See 57 Bom LR 1062 Ed.

No application was made to the High Court for leave to appeal to this Court from the decision of that High Court but on 2-9-1955 the present petition was filed in this Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution for the relief hereinbefore mentioned. On 7-9-1955 a rule was issued by this Court on that petition subject to the question of its maintainability in view of the dismiss