The discretionary nature of relief under article 226 and the absence of any infringement of fundamental rights disentitled the petitioner to relief.

( 1 ) THE petitioner on his own showing is a tax dodger. His true grievance appears to be that his tax evasion has been detected and that he is made to disgorge the unlawful gain made by him. He says that the order of rectification, which is the subjects-matter of attack in these proceedings, was made without the authority of law. Assuming with out deciding that his complaint is true, the first question for decision is whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we would be justified in exercising our extraordinary powers under article 226 of the Constitution.

( 2 ) THE material facts are as follows :

The petitioner is a coffee planter in Chickmagalur District. He owns coffee estates both in chickmagalur as well as in Hassan District. The Mysore State Legislature enacted the Mysore agriculture Income-tax Act, 1955 (Mysore Act No. 4 of 1955) to be referred to as the "act" hereinafter, providing for the levy of agricultural income-tax on "commercial crops" grown in the agricultural lands situate within the State. In that "act" the charging section is section 3, which provides : "3. (1) Agricultural income-tax at the rate or rates specified in Part I of the Schedule to this Act, shall be charged for each financial year commencing from the 1st April, 1955, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person. . . "

( 3 ) SECTION 4 lays down that subject to the provisions of the "act", the total agricultural income of any "previous year" of any person comprising of all agricultural income derived from any land to which the "act" is applicable, whether received by him within or without the State, subject to certain exceptions, which are not relevant for our present purpose. The tax liability was imposed by the charging section. In the "act", there are provisions authorising quantification of the tax imposed and for collecting the same. For our present purpose, it would be sufficient if we refer to sub-section (1) and (5) of section 64 of the "act".

( 4 ) SECTION 64 (1) says :

"64. (1) Any person who derives agricultural income from land not exceeding five thousand acres in extent of the first class of land or an extent equivalent thereto consisting of any one or more of the classes of land specified in Part II of the Schedule, may apply to the prescribed officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu there of lump sum at the rates specified in Part III of the Schedule in respect of the first class of land. "

( 5 ) SUB-SECTION 5 of section 64 reads :

"64. (5) The permission granted under sub-section (3) shall be in force for the year for which it is granted; and in respect of that period the provisions of the act regarding the submission of returns, accounts or other documents, the assessment to agricultural income-tax or any other matter incidental thereto shall not apply in relation to the grantee. "

( 6 ) THE petitioner and his son (K. R. Seetharama Setty) submitted two applications on November 29, 1955, to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Chickmagalur. The application of the petitioner set out only some of the lands owned by him and situate in Chickmagalur District where in commercial crops were grown (which will be hereinafter referred to as the "agricultural lands" ). It is shown that the description of the properties given therein was not exhaustive of those owned by the petitioner and situate in Chickmagalur District. At the same time, his son (K. R. Seetharama Setty) filed another application before the same officer, asserting that the lands described in his petition and situate in Chickmagalur District belonged to him. The petitioner presented another application, dated November 29, 1955, to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, hassan, showing therein his "agricultural lands" situate in Hassan District. In the petition filed by the petitioner before the Agricultural I