V. C. DAGA, J.

( 1 ) WHETHER auditors of the company could be subjected to the action under section 9 (1) (bbb) of the CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALT ACT, 1944 ("act" for short) Act read with Rule 209-A of the Central Excise Rules ("said rules" for short) framed under the provisions of the Act is the question involved in these petitions. Since the common questions of law and fact arise in both petitions, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The parties are referred to in their original capacity, however, facts are drawn from Writ Petition No. 1319 of 1994 (Jayantilal thakkar and Co. v. Union of India). Factual Matrix :

( 2 ) THE first petitioner is a firm of Chartered Accountants engaged, inter alia; in the auditing of accounts of various companies. The second petitioner is a partner in the first petitioner firm.

( 3 ) THE respondent No. 2-Collector of Central Excise in exercise of powers and functions, inter alia; under the provisions of the Act issued six show cause notices to the petitioners alleging that in the course of audit of M/s. G. T. C. Industries Ltd. (G. T. C.), a tobacco manufacturing company, the petitioners after having examined relevant documents deliberately certified the books of accounts of G. T. C. to be true and correct in spite of noticing removal of more than one consignment of cigarettes under different invoices bearing same serial number and different delivery challans also bearing same serial number but paid central excise duty for one consignment of cigarettes removed under one set of documents out of the above. It is, thus, alleged that the first petitioner had, prima facie; dealt with the excisable goods, which they were knowing and had reason to believe, ate liable for confiscation under the Act or the said Rules, consequently the petitioner firms have rendered themselves liable for penal action under Rule 209- a of the said Rules.

( 4 ) THE aforesaid show cause notices (six numbers) issued to both the petitioner firms carrying similar allegations and charges are subject-matter of challenge in these petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Submissions :

( 5 ) AT the outset, Mr. R. V. Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revenue raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petitions contending that the show cause notices are open to challenge before the writ court only on the ground that even if the facts are assumed to be correct no case is made out against the notices. According to him, no such case has been made out in these petitions. Apart from this, Mr. Desai submits that by no means the notices in question could be said to be non est in the eye of law since they were issued by the authorities having jurisdiction to issue such notices. He submits that the petitioners can reply to the show cause notices and contend before the adjudicating authority that the show cause notices suffer from the jurisdictional error. He, thus, submits that these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. Mr. Desai placed reliance on the Apex Court judgment in the case of (Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse), 2004 (164) e. L. T. 141 (S. C.); (Union of India v. Hindalco Industries), 2003 (5) S. C. C. 194 and (Garware Plastics and Polyester Ltd. v. Union of India), 1986 (24) E. L. T. 449 (Bom.) in support of his submissions.

( 6 ) MR. Desai, at the cost of repetition urged that if the authorities have a jurisdiction to issue notices, then, it also has the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the legality of such notices, consequently, the question of legality of the notices should be left to the departmental adjudicating authorities and that this Court should not test the legality of the said notices in the present writ petition.

( 7 ) MR. Shroff, learned Counsel for the petitioners in reply, submitted that after having allowed the petitions to remain pending for about 13 years in this court it would not be proper on the part