JAWAHARLAL GUPTA, J.

1. Is the search of the petitioners premises vitiated on the ground that the competent authority had no information or material as contemplated under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? This is the primary question that arises for decision in this case. A few facts maybe briefly noticed.

2. The petitioner is an assessee under the Income-tax Act since the year 1961. He was running a sole proprietary concern under the name and style of Jadco Industries for the manufacture and sale of auto parts. He has his residence within the factory premises. In the year 1986, the petitioner inducted his son, Mr. Tarun Sharma, as a partner. Jadco Industries had, thus, become a partnership concern.

3. In the year 1987, Mr. R. Bhardwaj, the petitioners son-in-law, was posted as Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Acquisition) at Bangalore. At that time, according to the petitioner, respondent No. 3 was the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax at Bangalore. He made certain reports reflecting adversely on the integrity of Mr. R. Bhardwaj. As a result, the residential premises of Mr. Bhardwaj were searched on July 1, 1987. On the same day, the business and res