JUDGMENT

R.S. Pathak, J. - On September 8, 1970, the petitioner made an application for the cross-examination of the second respondent Rajendra Prasad Bhatt, S.T.O., on the counter-affidavit filed by him in reply to the writ petition. The application came on for hearing before us on October 16, 1970. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the matter carefully we came to the view that Bhatt should be summoned for cross-examination, and as learned counsel for the parties were agreed that October 20, 1970 would be a convenient date for that purpose we made an order accordingly. Mr. R. M. Sahai, learned Standing Counsel for the first to fourth respondents, undertook to produce Bhatt, for cross-examination on that date. In our order we mentioned that the reasons, for making it would be pronounced later. We do so now.

2. The petitioner is a partner of M/s. Bharat Oil Co. and of M/s. Ajodhya Prasad and Sons. M/s. Bharat Oil Company is an agent of the Indian Oil Corporation for the distribution of its products, kerosene, high speed motor spirits and lubricants. M/s. Ajodhya Prasad and Sons are stockist of cement manufactured by Bharat Oversees Cement Co.

3. On October 14, 1969, the premises of the Budaun Branch of M/s. Bharat Oil Co. were raided by Rajendra Prasad Bhatt and an Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Sadiq Ali Khan. They were accompanied by a police force. The premises of the Ujhani Branch of M/s. Bharat Oil Co. were also raided. The premises of M/s. Ajodhya Prasad & Sons at Ujhani as well as the premises of the Bareilly branch of M/s. Bharat Oil Co., were similarly raided. A large number of account books and documents were seized and removed. The petitioner filed a writ petition, challenging the validity of the search and seizure, and prayed for the return of the books and documents.

4. The case of the petitioner in the writ petition is that there was no possible ground for the Sales Tax Officers conducting the raid to believe that the firms were trying to avade liability for tax, and that the entire raid was made at the instance of one, Sri Krishna Goel, a member of the U.P. Legislative Council, and resident of Ujhani, Budaun, who was hostile to the firms and was attempting to build up a rival business. It is alleged that out of malice and spite he got a complaint made against the firms and because of his political influence with the Government he was able to secure some orders for action against the firms, with the result that the second respondent, Rajendra Prasad Bhatt, Sales Tax Officer, the third respondent, Sadiq Ali Khan, Assistant Sales Tax Officer, and the fourth respondent, K. S. Pande, Deputy Supdt., Sales Tax Department made these raids, indiscriminately searched the business premises, invaded and searched the residence of the Munim and also molested his wife. It is also stated that the books and documents were removed, not because there could possibly be any evasion of tax but because the fifth respondent, Sri Krishna Goel wanted them for his own purposes to assist him in obtaining the dealership of the Indian Oil Corporation in which he had been unsuccessful so far. In short, therefore, the petitioner says that the search of the premises at different places and the seizure of the books and documents was mala fide and no grounds existed for taking action under Section 13 (3) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. These form the principal grounds set out in the petition.

5. In reply to the writ petition, Rajendra Prasad Bhatt filed a counter affidavit dated January 5, 1970. The allegation that the search and seizure were motivated by mala fide is not admitted. Paragraph 9 of the counter-affidavit contains the following averment :

"......... It is stated that a complaint was received against the petitioner's firm of evasion of Sales Tax. As a result of the complaint a raid way organised by the Sales Tax Officer (Special Investigation Branch), Bareilly Sri Rajendra Prasad Bhatt along with the Assistant Sales