(1.) IN these petitions for a writ of mandamus, the petitioners have prayed for a direction to the respondents including the CIT -X (Delhi) and the TRO to render accounts in regard to the rent collected by them from the petitioners' tenant and to refund the amount so recovered together with the amount of compensation received from the Special Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) at Dehradun.
(2.) THE petitioners' case as set out in the writ petition is that although no arrears on account of income -tax or wealth -tax dues were outstanding against them, yet the TRO at New Delhi had got the properties of the petitioners at Dehradun attached for recovery of amounts allegedly due from the petitioners. It is further alleged that the Department had even forced the LAO at Dehradun to remit the amount of compensation due to the petitioners in connection with the acquisition of their properties for adjustment towards the alleged tax dues outstanding against the petitioners. The petitions go on to state that since no outstanding due were ever payable by the petitioners, the attachment of their properties and the recovery of the compensation amount was wholly illegal and unjustified. The petitions also state that the petitioners have been running from pillar to post demanding refund of the amounts illegally recovered from them but without any fruitful result. The petitioners allege that notices sent to the Chief Secretary of the Government of Uttar Pradesh and the Special LAO at Dehradun requesting them to demand back the amount remitted to the IT Department and to pay the same to the petitioners had also remained abortive. In substance, the petitioners grievance is that even when nothing really was outstanding against them, the respondents had taken coercive steps by way of attachment of the properties owned by the petitioners and the amount of compensation payable to them and recovered and adjusted the said amounts without any authority of law. A mandamus directing the respondents to render account for the amounts received by them and to refund the said amount has, therefore, been prayed for.
(3.) YEARS , the respondents had not filed any counter -affidavit. Mr. Jolly, counsel appearing for them however made a prayer for grant of some more time to enable the respondents to reconstruct the record which was not available and to file a proper affidavit indicating whether recoveries had been made from the petitioners as alleged and if so, whether there was any refund due to them. Mr. Jolly was accordingly granted two months' time finally to file an affidavit and to secure the relevant record failing which orders for personal appearance of the officers concerned were to be passed by this Court.