IBRAHIM L T Vs. AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in the O. P. is the second plaintiff in O. S. No. 26 of 1982 before the Munsiff's Court, Kasargode. The suit was one for partition of the plaint schedule properties. He alleged that the income of the properties were appropriated by his brother, 3rd respondent in this O. P. who is the Ist defendant in the suit. To prove his averments in the plaint the petitioner filed an application before the Ist respondent the Agricultural Income Tax Officer, Hosdurg praying for the issue of a certified copy of the return filed by the 3rd respondent quoting reference number M 55 (Ext. P1). The Ist respondent by Ext. P2 order dated 23-2-1983 rejected the application. He relied on S.54(3) read with S.54(1) of the Agricultural Income Tax Act and said that the application for a certified copy of the return filed by the 3rd respondent by a stranger is not sustainable and so the petitioner is not entitled to the certified copy applied for by him. The petitioner filed another application seeking the very same relief by Ext. P3 dated 18-3-1983. Ext. P4 is the affidavit filed in support of the application. By Ext. P5 order dated 21-3-1983 the Ist respondent rejected the application. In this Original Petition, Exts. P2 and P5 proceedings of the Ist respondent are impugned.

(2.) Petitioner's counsel contended that there is no absolute prohibition against disclosure of information under S.54 of the Agricultural Income Tax Act. It is argued that the Ist respondent misconstrued S.54 of the Act, in passing Exts. P2 and P5 orders. The petitioner says that he is the coowner of the properties along with the 3rd respondent and so, there is nothing which interdicts the 1st respondent from supplying the certified copies of the returns filed by his brother, 3rd respondent, for the years 1969 to 1981.

(3.) On behalf of the Ist respondent a detailed counter affidavit dated 27th February, 1984 has been filed. Government Pleader, Mr. Divakaran Pillai, who appeared on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 1, supported the stand taken in the counter affidavit of the Ist respondent. Counsel for the Revenue further contended that S.54 of the Agricultural Income Tax Act has been properly construed by the Ist respondent and that Exts. P2 and P5 are not open to any infirmity as alleged by the petitioner. The Revenue contends that the mere fact the petitioner is a coowner along with his brother, 3rd respondent, will not in any way affect the plain and clear language of S.54 of the Act which interdicts the Ist respondent from supplying the copies of the returns filed by the 3rd respondent to the petitioner. S.54(1) of the Agricultural Income Tax Act is to the following effect: