(1) These are connected petitions, common questions of law arise for decision in these petitions. Therefore, they can be dealt with in one order.

(2) All the petitioners are the children of one Nagappa. The question of their liability to be assessed for the assessment year 1958-59 arises in these petitions. Originally, Nagappa was assessed to tax the income with which we are concerned in these petitions. That assessment was set aside by this Court in I.T.R.C. No. 3 of 1962 on 13-8-1962. Thereafter, the Income Tax Officer, City Circle II, Respondent in these petitions, issued notices to the petitioners under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to be hereinafter referred to as "the Act". The petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 583, 584, 585 and 588 of 1963 are minors. Notices have been issued in their individual names and not in the name of their guardian. The notices issued to the Petitioners were served on K. Shivanna the clerk of Nagappa, the petitioners' father. For the assessment year in question all these petitions had previously submitted returns under Section 22 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922. The Income Tax Officer held them to be not assessable. On the other hand he held Nagappa to be liable to pay the tax on the income in question and assessed him for the same which assessment, as mentioned earlier, was set aside by this Court.

(3) In these petitions the petitioner have prayed for a writ of prohibition or direction prohibiting the respondent from assessing them to tax, for the assessment year 1958-59 in pursuance of the notices referred to earlier.

(4) Sri. K. Srinivasan, the learned Counsel for the petitioners formulated three points in support of the prayer made in these petitions. They are: (i) the notices served on K. Shivanna not being in conformity with the provisions contained in Section 282 of these notices; (ii) the notices issued in the name of the petitioners in writ petitioners in writ petition Nos. 583, 584, 585 and 588 of 1963 (all minors) are invalid notices and therefore, no assessment can be made on the basis of those notices; and (iii) on the facts of these cases there is no questions of reopening the assessment made on the petitioners as they had not been assessed at all. We shall now consider these points one by one.

(5) But before examining the points formulated by Sri. K. Srinivasan, it is necessary to mention, that while issuing notices under Section 148, the Income Tax Officer is not acting judicially or quasi-judicially and consequently no writ of certiorari or prohibition can be issued. But it is well settled that this Court has power to issue in a fit case an order prohibiting the executive authority from acting without jurisdiction, particularly where such an act subjects or is likely to subject any citizen to lengthy proceedings and unnecessary harassment; See the decision of the Supreme Court in Calcutta Discount Company Limited Vs. Income-tax Officer, Companies District, I and Another, AIR 1961 SC 372. There is no doubt that a notice prescribed under Section 148 of the act for initiating reassessment proceedings is not a mere procedural requirement; the service of the prescribed notice on the assessee is a condition precedent to the validity of any reassessment made under Section 147. If no notice is issued or if the notice issued is shown to be invalid then the proceedings taken by the Income Tax Officer without a notice or in pursuance of an invalid notice would be illegal and void.--See the decision of the Supreme Court in Y. Narayana Chetty and Another Vs. The Income-tax Officer, Nellore and Others, (1959) 35 ITR 388 SC. Having said that much, let us now proceed to consider the points in controversy.

(6) Admittedly, the notices issued under Section 148 were not served on any of the petitioners. They were all served on one K. Shivanna, clerk of Nagappa, the father of the petitioners. Can the respondent proceed to assess the petitioners in pursuance of those notices? The procedu