ORDER

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. - On this writ petition, on the earlier occasion, we passed the following order:

"1. Let the petitioner''s advocate satisfy this court as to how the writ petition will lie for recovery of money even if that recovery is in terms of the order of this court. Our simple query is, if the order of this court, on which reliance is placed, is passed on 25th March, 2008 and that order is also capable of more than one interpretation, then, merely because the petitioner keeps on writing letters or raising a demand on the respondents in writing, would it save the bar of limitation, which is prescribed by the Limitation Act, 1963 for filing a suit for recovery of money. Merely because a writ petition is filed does not mean that this court can pass an order contrary to the scheme of the Limitation Act, 1963 and grant the relief. All the more when this writ petition is filed in the year 2018 and to be precise on 23rd July, 2018, a good 10 years after the right to recover that money accrued in favour of the petitioner.

2. The petitioner''s advocate says that she would consider this position in law and address the court on the next occasion. We place this matter for "passing orders" on 17th September, 2018."

2. Today, when we heard Mr. Tiwari extensively, he would submit that a panchnama was drawn by the search authorities reflecting seizure of cash of Rs. 4,99,900/, copy of which is at Exhibit A to the petition. That is dated 25.8.1987. An order under Section 132(5) was made by the Assessing Officer on 22.12.1987, but the aggrieved petitioner approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition, which Writ Petition bearing No.721 of 1988 impugned this order of 22.12.1987. That came to be disposed of with the following order and direction:

"4. In the circumstances, rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause( a) and respondent no.1 is directed to issue a fresh Show Cause Notice to the petitioner under Rule 112A of the Income Tax Rules 1962 within 12 weeks from today. Alongwith the said notice the petitioner will also be furnished copies of all statements/documents which the income tax authorities would like to rely upon. Thereafter a final order under Section 132(5), as it then stood, will be passed within a further period of 8 weeks of the first date of hearing, after rehearing the petitioner in accordance with law. It is made clear that if no notice under rule 112A of the Income tax Rules 1962 is issued within 12 weeks from today as directed, then the amount seized will be refunded to the petitioner with 6% simple interest from the date of the seizure till the date of return. Petition stands disposed off in the aforesaid terms."

When this order was passed by this Court on 25.3.2008, all that the petitioner has done thereafter is to bring to the notice of the authorities this Court''s order and direction. However, on 19.9.2008, he was informed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exhibit-D, Page 38) that the seized cash is not lying presently in the custody of the Commissioner of Income Tax1, Mumbai. This fact was informed by letter of 8.9.2008. That is why the petitioner was requested to give information with regard to the seized cash so that the office expedites the matter. On 24.10.2008, identical reply was given by the Department to another communication of the petitioner of 19.9.2008. Thus, the petitioner was called upon to furnish information which would be useful for the Revenue to locate the seized cash, including providing details such as names of various officers involved in the search action and assessment proceedings, etc.. The petitioner then writes a letter straightaway on 4.5.2009 and purports to inform the authority that at the time of seizure of the cash he was assessed with AII Ward under a Permanent Account No.34008PV1507. The petitioner then relies upon a Notice of Demand, copy of which is at Exhibit-G, Page 41. That is of 2.12.2009 and the Assessment Order is also dated 2.12.2009. That, ac