D. Biswas, J.

1. The above mentioned writ petitions have been filed before this court by the writ petitioners disputing the legality and validity of the search and seizure operations carried out, by the respondent authorities on different dates. The writ petitions pose common questions of law on identical facts and, therefore, are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Mr. S.S. Ray, learned senior counsel appeared for the writ petitioners in W. P. (C) Nos. 1552 of 2000, 137 of 2000, 6965 of 2000, 7008 of 2000, 2889 of 2001, 2890 of 2001, 8647 of 2001 and 8648 of 2001 along with Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel and assisted by Mr. S. Shyam, learned counsel, Mr. P. Upadhaya, learned counsel appeared for the petitioner in W. P. (C). No. 3729 of 2001. The respondent authorities have been represented by Shri R.P. Agarwal, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. U. Bhuyan, learned counsel.

3. At the very outset, for convenience, the facts in each case and the stand of the Revenue are proposed to be reflected in brief.

Facts in W. P. (C) No. 1552 of 2000:

4. The petitioner, M/s. M. S. Associates, is a partnership firm duly registered under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. Smt. Jyoti Limbu and Smt. Tilmaya Chong are the two partners of the firm having its registered office at Connaught Place, New Delhi, and branch office at GNG Road, Silpukhuri, Guwahatu. The petitioner-firm is engaged in the business of selling of State organised lottery tickets of various States, namely--Assam, Manipur and Meghalaya. The firm's responsibilities are limited to the extent of assisting the State Government to sell lottery tickets. The petitioner firm has been regularly filing Income Tax returns before the Income Tax authorities which were finalised after scrutiny. The business premises of the petitioner firm as well as the residential and official premises of the persons associated with the firm were searched on June 17/23, 1999 and on October 29, 1999, in pursuance of the warrants of authorisation issued under Section 132 of the Act, and a large amount of cash, jewellery, investment certificates, fixed deposit receipts and other documents including books of account were seized. The search was carried out in the office premises of the petitioner at Guwahati, Tinsukia and other places. Though the warrants were issued in the name of Mr. M.K. Subba, Mr. A.K. Subba and Mr. S.R. Subba, the search was in reality carried out against the petitioner firm. The warrants of authorisation were issued in violation of the provisions of Section 132 by respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 5 without any authority of law on the basis of various news items published in newspapers based on the draft and unsigned report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, hereinafter referred to as the "CAG". The report of the CAG was in the draft form and did not acquire any legal status. Therefore, it could not be treated as information within the meaning of Sub-section (1) of Section 132. That apart, the Nagaland State Assembly referred the report to the Public Accounts Committee, and the said Committee submitted its recommendations to the Legislative Assembly. The Public Accounts Committee did not recommend any action, against the petitioner firm. The petitioner firm is assessed to tax at New Delhi and respondent No. 5 based at Guwahati without any authority of law issued the warrants of authorisation. The satisfaction for search and seizure in respect of the petitioner firm was that of the Director, Income Tax (Investigation), New Delhi. It is further averred that the CAG carried out an audit pursuant to a complaint filed by one Mr. Munkala Kishna Rao, a business rival of the petitioner firm. The report of the CAG contains sweeping adverse remarks against the petitioner firm indicating that the firm was involved in some sort of scam with the Directorate of Lotteries. The search and seizure were carried out during the period when the matter was pe