1. On October 17, 1974, the house of the petitioner was searched by respondents Nos. 3 and 4 accompanied by other officers. The income-tax authorities purported to act on an authorisation which had been issued by respondent No. 1, the Commissioner of Income-tax, under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Shorn of all details, the fact remains that after the search of the premises of the petitioner had been completed, M. K. Dhar, respondent No. 3, got into touch with J. S. Dulat, respondent No. 2, on the telephone. The petitioner has stated that Dhar told Dulat on that occasion on the telephone that not much jewellery had been found. Dulat ordered Dhar to seize all the things found from the premises of the petitioner as per instructions, and thereafter, at about 2-40 or 2-45 p.m., Dulat came to the residence of the petitioner without being authorised to enter the premises, and on being told about the relevant facts by the petitioner, he directed respondent No. 3 to seize the sum of Rs. 4,000 and the jewellery as per instructions, in spite of the petitioners protest against the seizure. The grievance of the petitioner in this respect, mentioned in paragraph 23 of the peti