By the Court.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.K. Upadhyay appearing for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and Sri Siddharth Khare appearing for respondent No. 5.

2. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of the parties the petition is being disposed of finally.

3. By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the notice dated 15.2.2011 and subsequent notices and summons as well as attachment order dated 25.4.2011.

4. The brief facts, which emerged from the pleadings of the parties are; that a notice dated 15.2.2011 was issued by the Tax Recovery Officer to the petitioner stating that a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/- is due from Ms. Vejenti, Kanpur, on account of income tax/penalty/interest/fine and the petitioner was required to make payment of the aforesaid amount under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (called the ‘Act’ for short). Subsequently, the petitioner was issued another notice by the Tax Recovery Officer dated 22.2.2011 asking the petitioner to appear at his office on 1.3.2011 at 11.00 a.m.

5. The petitioner, upon receiving the said notice, filed his objection, vide his letter dated 26.4.2011. In the reply it was stated that the petitioner is unable to find out any reason as to why he has been called upon by the said notice. It was stated that the petitioner is an assessee at the Income Tax Office at Raipur (Chattisgarh). Subsequently, again a reply letter was sent on 9.5.2011 to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur, stating that although the notice was replied but Ram Bhargava, Tax Recovery Officer, is harassing the petitioner and his family members. The letter/complaint, submitted by the petitioner, was forwarded to the Commissioner of Income Tax-II by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur, for redressal of grievances.

6. The Tax Recovery Officer again issued a notice calling upon the petitioner to appear on 1.6.2011 and an order for attachment was issued on 25.4.2011, which has been filed as Annexure ‘20’ to the writ petition. Since the petitioner’s immovable property was attached, a notice was also issued by the Tax Recovery Officer to the Branch Manager, IndusInd Bank, Krishna Complex, Raipur.

7. Aggrieved against, the petitioner has come up to this Court praying for the following reliefs :

“(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the notice dated 15.2.2011 and subsequent notices, summon and attachment order dated 25.4.2011;

(ii) issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(iii) Award the cost of the writ petition.”

8. This Court, while issuing notice by order dated 20.12.2011, passed the following order :

“Serious allegations of mala fide has been made against the Tax Recovery Officer - respondent No. 4, who has also been impleaded in person as respondent No. 5.

Issue notice.

Notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 has been accepted by Sri R.K. Upadhyay, learned senior standing counsel, Income Tax Department.

Issue notice to respondent No. 5, fixing 24th January 2012. Steps to be taken within a week.

List on the date fixed in the notice.

Till further orders, further proceedings pursuant to the notice dated 15.2.2011 shall remain stayed.”

9. In the counter-affidavit, filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 4, it has been stated that one Smt. Vaijanti Gupta, the assessee, is in default of Rs. 5,50,000/- to the Department. The recovery certificate pertaining to assessment year 2001-02 was transferred to the Tax Recovery Officer-3 by letter dated 30.9.2011. However, in the counter-affidavit, no documents have been brought on record by the respondents to indicate that under which proceeding and by which order the amount was due against Smt. Vaijanti Gupta. However, for purposes of this case, we proceed on the assumption that an amount of Rs. 5,50,000/- is due against Smt. Vaijanti Gupta.

10. The respondents have f