Chandrashekhar, C.J.

1. IN this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have challenged the reference made by the WTO to the Valuation Officers for valuing certain buildings belonging to petitioner-1 firm. The petitioners have also prayed for quashing the notices issued by the Valuation Officers to petitioner-2. The petitioners have also prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus restraining the Valuation Officers from valuing those buildings.

2. MOST of the material facts are not in dispute and they are briefly as follows: Petitioner-1, Messrs. Juggilal Kamlapat Bankers, is a partnership-firm. Petitioner-2, Padampat Singhania, was one of the partners thereof in his capacity as the karta of a HUF. He had been assessed to wealth-tax in the status of HUF and the assets so assessed for tax included the interest of the family in petitioner-1 firm up to the assessment year 1966-67.

In the returns to wealth-tax submitted by petitioner-2 in the status of HUF for the assessment years 1967-68 to 1972-73, the family's interest in petitioner-1 firm was included.

3. PETITIONER-1 firm owned a number of buildings in Kanpur. In the returns submitted by petitioner-2, the book value of those buildings had been adopted for valuing the interest of the family in petitioner-1 firm. As respondent-1, the WTO., felt that the market value of those buildings was much more than such book value, he referred the valuation of those buildings to the Valuation Officers under Section 16A of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Respondents 2 and 3, the Valuation Officers', issued notices to petitioner-2 intimating that they would inspect the buildings for determining the fair market value thereof and requesting him to afford necessary facilities for such inspection and to produce certain records connected with those buildings.

4. PETITIONER-2 addressed a letter to the WTO in which he contended that none pf the properties referred to the valuers belonged to him and hence such reference should be withdrawn. He also addressed letters to the Valuation Officers in which he contended that the references made to them by the WTO were invalid and requested them to return the references to the WTO. As the above contentions were not accepted by the respondents the petitioners have approached this court by way of this petition.

The learned senior standing counsel who appeared for the respondents raised a preliminary objection that in view of Clause (3) of amended Article 226 of the Constitution, this petition is not maintainable inasmuch as the petitioners have an alternative remedy by way of appeals under Sections 23 and 24 and a reference to the High Court under Section 27 of the Act.

5. ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the reference made by the WTO to the Valuation Officers under Section 16A of the Act for valuation of the aforesaid buildings and the notices issued by the Valuation Officers were without jurisdiction and that there is no provision in the Act for appeal against such actions of the WTO and the Valuation Officer. To this, the answer of the learned senior standing counsel was that the petitioners could wait until the WTO made the assessment and in the appeal from such assessment the petitioners could challenge the impugned actions of the WTO and the Valuation Officers and that the question of jurisdiction of those officers could also be raised in appeals and the reference under Section 27 of the Act.

6. THE learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the appeals against the assessment orders and the reference under Section 27 thereafter are so cumbersome that they cannot be regarded as adequate and efficacious remedies against the orders and actions of the WTO and the Valuation Officers prior to the assessment.

For the purpose of this petition, we do not consider it necessary to go into the question whether the remedy by way of appeals and reference under