( 1 ) THESE three Special Criminal Applications under Arts. 226/227 of the Constitution have been moved by the same petitioner-Mahmed akhtar Husein alias Kadar Bhatti (a Pakistani national) against the concerned respondents - out of which the main respondents are - State of Gujarat commissioner of Income Tax and the Tax Recovery Officer No. 2, Income tax Office, Ahmedabad. The grievances voiced in these petitions centre round the arrest and detention of the petitioner in civil prison as he is said to have defaulted in paying the income-tax dues of Rs. 6,69,635. 00 for the assessment Year 1984-85. The petitioner was earlier ordered to be arrested under the provisions of Rule 73 (2) of the Second Schedule to the Income tax Act, 1961, by orders dated 5-12-1989 and 22-12-1989 issued by the Tax recovery Officer-II, Ahmedabad and was later ordered to be kept in the interim custody pending inquiry by an order dated 30-12-1989 passed by the same officer in exercise of his powers under Rule 75 of the same schedule. Ultimately, final order was passed by the same officer against the petitioner under Rule 76 (1) of the same Schedule and that order is dated 5-3-1990 and pursuant to that final order, the petitioner is detained in Civil prison, Bhadra, Ahmedabad all throughout till the date. In Special Criminal application No. 157 of 1990, petitioner has brought in challenge the order of his continuous detention vide order dated 30-12-1989 which is an order passed under Rule 75 of the Rules. He has challenged the mode of his incarceration pursuant to the said order by filing Special Criminal Application no. 387 of 1990; while he has challenged the final order of detention in civil prison dated 5-3-1990 by filing Special Criminal Application No. 721 of 1990. As all these three petitions are between the same contesting parties and as they are concerned with the main question about the legality of the orders of interim arrest, custody and detention of the petitioner in civil prison in connection with the certificate of recovery issued against the petitioner by the income-tax authorities for realising the income-tax dues for the assessment Year 1984-85 and as they raise common questions of law and fact, they were heard together by consent of the learned Advocates of both the sides and are being disposed of by this common judgment. . . . . . . . . . . . .

( 2 ) MR. Kapadia for the petitioner raised the following contentions for attacking the impugned final order of detention of the petitioner in the civil prison as passed by the Income Tax Recovery Officer on 5-3-1990 : (1) That the conditions-precedent to the exercise of powers under Rule 76 (1) read with Rule 73 (1) have not been satisfied in the present case and the Tax Recovery Officer has not arrived at any finding on these conditions and consequently, his order at Annexure "a" to Special criminal Application No. 721 of 1990 is null and void and liable to be quashed. (2) It was alternatively contended that even if the said order is held to be valid, even in that case, the petitioners continued detention in civil prison pursuant to the said order has become illegal as the petitioner can be detained in civil prison for a period of six months in all, as required by Rule 77 of the Second Schedule and this period of six onths will start not from 5-3-1990 the date of the final order but from the date on which the petitioners liberty was curtailed by ordering his arrest under Rule 73 (2) and which detention was continued under Rule 75 from 30-12-1989. In short, it was contended that in any case, six months period of detention which is the maximum period of detention in prison contemplated by Rule 77 should be computed from 30-12-1989. In that view of the matter, by 30-6-1990, six months period has already come to an end and consequently as on date, the petitioner must be forthwith be directed to be released from detention in civil prison. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

( 3 )