SETHURAMAN J.

These writ petitions raise certain common points and, therefore, they are taken together for consideration. W.P. No. 828 of 1977 has been filed by one Devarajan, a farmer in a village in Tirunelveli District. He claims to be a member of the East Thathankulam Lift Irrigation Co-operative Society. The first respondent to the writ petition is the Tamil Nadu Farmers Service Co-operative Federation Ltd., a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 53 of 1961, on 4th December, 1974, with the object of helping farmers particularly small and marginal farmers by providing them integrated credit and other services. The membership of the federation was open to all farmers' service co-operative societies, the Govt. of Tamil Nadu as well as any person of over 18 years of age. The total number of individual members was not to exceed 20. It is stated that the East Thathankulam Lift Irrigation Society is one of the co-operative societies, which are members of the first respondent-Federation. One of the other objects of the Federation is stated to be to encourage generally thrift, self-help and co-operation among the affiliated societies and the members, to raise funds by way of deposits from members and also to borrow money from members and non-members and to undertake such other activities as may be conducive to the promotion of the economic interests of the members of the affiliated Societies. The Federation was taking deposits on payment of interest at 10% per annum. According to the said Devarajan, about 650 farmers had lent monies on interest to the Federation and he himself had advanced a sum of Rs. 18, 500 on 20th September, 1975, through the East Thathankulam Lift Irrigation Co-operative Society. He heard in June, 1976, that the Federation had gone into problems with the I.T. Dept. as a result of which the Federation was not in a position to repay the loans made to it. He filed a suit in the City Civil Court for recovery of Rs. 19, 877.50, being the principal and interest due on the promissory note under O. XXXVII, r. 1 of the CPC. There was an application by the first respondent-Federation for leave to defend, which was dismissed, and there was a decree in favour of the petitioner, Devarajan, on 6th July, 1976, for a sum of Rs. 19, 887.50, being the principal and interest and also for costs of Rs. 1, 847.50. In his affidavit it is stated that certain other persons had also obtained decrees against the first respondent-Federation and that even where execution petitions were filed, the Federation was not in a position to repay the amount, because its accounts in various banks had been frozen. He referred to certain searches conducted by the Assistant Director of Inspection on 2nd June, 1976, and the orders passed under s. 132(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961, freezing the amounts lying in the banks. It is alleged that because of this freezing order, the decrees obtained by him and other farmers, about 64 in number, were not being settled by the Federation. He alleged that the orders passed under s. 132(3) were illegal and invalid. Broadly stated, his contention was that s. 132(3) violated arts. 14 and 19 of the Constitution and, therefore, invalid, and that, in any event, s. 132 had not been properly applied in the present case. He, therefore, prayed for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, restraining the respondents from acting upon or implementing the order dated 2nd June, 1976, issued by the Assistant Director of Inspection (Intelligence), Income-tax Department, Madras, under s. 132(3) of the Act. He impleaded as the first respondent the Federation. Respondents Nos. 2 to 4 are the banks in which the Federation had accounts, which were the subject of the orders of freezing in 1976. Respondents Nos. 5 and 6 are the Assistant Director of Inspection and Union of India, respectively The main respondent is thus the fifth respondent, the Assistant Director of Insp