( 1 ) AS a preliminary objection, to the effect that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this petition, has been taken on behalf of the respondents and as we agree with the same, it is sufficient if we set out the facts material for the purpose of deciding that question. But before doing so, we shall quote the reliefs prayed for in this petition. They read thus: "the petitioner, therefore, most respectfully prays: That this Hon ble Court be pleased:

(A) to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction, or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India quashing the said search and seizure and ordering and directing the respondents to forthwith return to the petitioner the remaining files, documents and papers seized and carried away by them during the said search and seizure and the sum of Rs. 1,17,000. 00 annum from the 9th July, 1966, till pay with interest thereon at 6 per cent per ment;

(B) to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, calling for the records of the case and the order passed by the second respondent under section 132 (5) and after going into the question of the legality thereof quash and set aside the said order being the order dated the 6th October 1966, passed by the second respondent under section 132 (5) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, and order the respondents to return the said sum with interest as prayed for in sub-para (a) above;

(C) to issue a writ in the nature of prohibition, or any other appropriate writ direction or order under Art. 226 of the Constitution restraining and prohibiting the respondents, their officers, servants and agents from taking any steps or proceedings on the strength of or making use of the files, documents and other papers and money seized during the said search and seizure effected under the provisions of section 132 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, and under the warrant of authorisation issued there under or. from making any assessment on the petitioner on the basis of the said files, documents and papers and money; and from recovering any tax out of the monies seized :

(D) to declare that the third respondent has no jurisdiction to hear the application made by the petitioner under section 132 (11) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, or to pass any order thereon with reference to the impugned order made under section 132 (5) of the Act;

(E) to declare section 132. in particular sub-sections (5) and/or (11) and (12) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, ultra vires of the Constitution under Articles 14, 19 (1) (f) and 31. beyond legislative competence of the Union, in excess of the powers, and being colourable pieces of legislation :

(F) to issue an interim order and injunction in terms of sub-paragraph (c) above pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition ;

(G) to order the respondents to pay to petitioner the costs of this petition : and

(H) to grant such other reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require. " The material facts are these: On July 9 and 11, 1966. the petitioner s house and his business premises were searched by the 2nd respondent to this petition (1st Income-tax Officer. A-III Ward, Bombay) as per the authorisation issued by the 1st respondent (the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-II. Bombay), under section 132 (1) of the Income-tax Act 1961. During the searches in Question, several documents were seized. In addition, the 2nd respondent seized a sum of Rs. 1,17,000. 00. It appears, a portion of the amount seized has been appropriated towards the arrears of income-tax due from the petitioner. The petitioner is challenging the validity of those searches and seizures. It may be noted that the searches and the seizures in question have taken place in the city of Bombay. Respondents 1 and 2 reside in that city. Their offices are situate in that city. Even the petitioner is residing in that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document