N RAMAKRISHNAN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is true that the main writ petition has been filed for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the warrant of authorisation issued by the first respondent in the writ petition for causing a search being made in the premises of the writ petitioner and to direct respondents Nos. 1 to 3 from taking further proceedings in any manner pursuant to the raid made by them on 25th June, 1983. But, on that score, it cannot be said that an order to vacate the interim injunction already granted will virtually give a quietus to the writ petition itself. On the basis of some information, the officers of the IT Department deemed it necessary to search the premises of the writ petitioner and did conduct a search on 25th June, 1983. According to the writ petitioner, no incriminating document or material nor unaccounted cash or jewels were seized and all that was seized was a paltry sum of Rs. 300 odd. On the ground that the unwarranted search had caused not only pain and anguish to him but has also caused undesirable publicity, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a certiorarified mandamus. While admitting the writ petition, an interim injunction had been granted. Now, the Department has come forward with W.M.P. No. 6070 of 1984 and prays for the order of interim injunction being vacated on the ground that the hands of the Department to proceed with the investigation in accordance with law may not be fettered. The writ petitioner opposes the prayer and states that he is ready to get along with the main writ petition itself and that any order vacating the interim order of injunction already granted will expose him to harassment at the hands of the respondents. We are not on the merits of the case. It may be that the petitioner's grievance that the search of his premises is unfair may be true. But, what has to be taken into consideration in such cases is the larger question whether the hands of the investigating agency can be fettered by an order of this Court on the ground that they have used their powers in excess of the rights conferred on them under the Act. Undoubtedly, the respondents are entitled under law to conduct searches and to proceed with their investigation and enquiry on the materials gathered by them. If the investigative powers of authorities like the respondents are restrained by orders of injunction, the investigation of cases themselves will come to a dead stop and that will not be in the interest of the State. In that perspective, therefore, I am inclined to vacate the injunction and, accordingly, it will stand vacated. The writ petitioner apprehends that he will be put to harassment by the respondents. It is needless to say that the respondents are bound to act in a responsible manner and use their powers in such a fashion as would not transgress their limits.