THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.16277 of 2025

ORDER:

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of respondent No.6 in not considering the application dated 17.04.2025 submitted by the petitioner seeking sworn statements of the partners, employees of respondent No.7 firm and that of respondent Nos.8 to 10 and their family members which were obtained during search and seizure operation conducted on the respondent No.7 firm on 18.11.2024 as illegal, arbitrary, unlawful and in violation of the principles of natural justice.

2. Heard Mr. A.Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel, representing Ms. L.Soumya, learned counsel on record for the petitioner, Mr. N.Praveen Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department for respondent Nos.2 to 6, and Mr. A.V. Krishna Koundinya, learned Senior Counsel, representing Mr. A.V.A.Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel for respondent Nos.7 to 10.

3. The grievance of the petitioner substantially seems to be the inaction on the part of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax in not considering the application that the petitioner had made seeking for certain information pertaining to respondent No.7 firm and that of respondent Nos.8 to 10. This information is said to be one which was obtained by respondent No.7 in the course of search and seizure raid conducted on respondent No.7 firm on 18.11.2024.

4. The petitioner claims himself to be a sleeping partner holding 20% of shares in respondent No.7 firm known as M/s. Swastik Mirch Store which came into existence in the year 2001. According to the petitioner, in the capacity of being a partner in the said firm and in order to protect his vested rights and interests, he was compelled to knock the doors of the Writ Court for the relief as sought for which stands reflected in the initial paragraph of this order.

5. Down the line, there seems to be some disputes that arouse between the petitioner and respondent Nos.8 to 10. Furthermore, the operation of respondent No.7 firm has, for some time, been predominantly managed by respondent Nos.8 to 10. As a result of the growing disputes within the family, the respondent Nos.8 to 10 gradually started denying the petitioner access to the financial information pertaining to the firm’s affairs and slowly started sidelining the petitioner. Because of the dispute that arouse between the petitioner and other private respondents, the matter has turned into an arbitration dispute and Mr. A.Venkateshwara Reddy, a retired Judge of the High Court for the State of Telangana was appointed as an Arbitrator. As things were proceeding, it has been learnt that on 18.11.2024, the official respondents, more particularly the respondent No.6 conducted search and seizure operation at the premises of the unofficial respondent Nos.8 to 10 and their family members. It has been contended that respondent Nos.8 and 9 have misled the petitioner in respect of the so-called search and seizure operation, rather denied such search and seizure operation to have been undertaken. According to the petitioner, the fact that there was a search and seizure operation conducted by respondent No.6 and where incriminating materials were unearthed, this itself establishes his contention and apprehension of other private respondents committing illicit financial practices and various financial irregularities without notice and knowledge of the petitioner, who is gradually being sidelined. According to the petitioner, it is for these reasons that he had moved an application before the respondent No.6 with a request to provide necessary information collected in the course of search and seizure operation. According to the petitioner, he needs those information / documents so as to protect himself from unnecessary prosecuti