N. Kumar, J.— The petitioner hut preferred this Writ Petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the notice at Annexures-A1 to A5 issued under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, by the first respondent to the Mandamus of various banks and also a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to return to the petitioner the amount collected illegally from the banker of the petitioner forthwith.

2. The material on record discloses that there exists one Tirupura Bhairavi Math in Northern India which has properties in the State of Karnataka. One Krishnananda Giri Gowswami died the Mahant of this Mutt. The said Kriahnananda Giri Gowswami died on 18.9.1989. The petitioner on has death applied to the Tahasildar of the my sore for issue of a survival certificate. The Tahsildar has issued a certificate dated 23.1.1990 to the effect that the petitioner is the sole surviving family member. The petitioner is filing returns of income for the last several years. In his returns he has showed that he has inherited the property at the mutt and he is filing his returns And paying taxes on the income derived from the properties of the mutt.

3. One Krishnamohananda Giri Goswami claims to be the Mahant of the mutt after the death of Krishnamohananda Giri Gowswami. The dispute between them pending in various Civil Courts. On the income tax tide the dispute reached tint Court and it was held that, even if it is to be held that the properties belong to the mutt, that finding would in no way come in the way of the Civil Courts going into the title of the properly and the petitioner can get his rights adjudicated in a Civil Court. However, when the petitioner called upon the income tax department to inform him the Heftily of the mutt, so that the petitioner who is the successor could pay the amount legally due to the department, the department has not to Jar informed the petitioner about any such liability. On the contrary, the department is not recognising the petitioner as a person who has inherited any right either in the properties of the mutt or as a successor of Krishnananda Giri Gowswami hi fact, the income tax department has got the properties of the mutt attached, hi the meanwhile the petitioner has told some of the properties of the mutt through his Power of Attorney one Ramajanam. The said Power of Attorney has kept the consideration of sale in various banks. On coming to know of these sales, realization of the sale consideration and the amount tang kept in the banks, till income tax department has issued the Impugned notices under Section 226(d) of the Act, calling upon the Managers of the respective banka to pay to the department the amount which is standing in the account of Ramajenam, the the power of Attorney Holder of the petitioner, towards the account of dues of Tirupura Bhairavi Mutt of Northern India. In fact, a sum of Rs. 18,57,999/- has been realized by the department in pursuance of such notices issued. Aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. The income tax department has filed a detailed reply. The sum and substance of their defence is, though the petitioner is not due in any monies to the assessee, i.e., the mutt, as the petitioner has wrongfully sold the properties belonging to the mutt, in spits of an order of attachment and the said amount is kept in bank deposits in the name of his Power of Attorney Holder, the department has right to recover the said amount. Therefore, they have issued these notices under Section 226(3) addressed to the Managers of various banks to remit the said amount to them. It is that on record that several suits in respect of the mutt t property are pending before the CM Courts between the petitioner and the other claimant Krishnamohananda Giri Goswami m fact the income tax department itself hot filed several suits for cancellation of the sale deeds executed by the petitioner through his Power of Attorney Holder in favour of various purchaser in respect of seve