DHANALAKSHMI SP Vs. ASST DIRECTOR OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to hand over the petitioner's stridhana jewels (ten items listed in the annexure to the petition) to her.

(2.) NOTICE of motion was ordered on July 19, 1989. Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram appears for the respondent on instructions.

(3.) I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. I do not think that this is a fit case where a writ of mandamus could be issued at this stage especially when an order has been passed by Sathiadev J. in the earlier proceedings which is extracted above and also reported in Chidambaram v. D. Venkatasan [1987] 167 ITR 443 (Mad). The learned Judge has clearly held that with regard to the handing over of the seized goods and the key of the premises under section 132 of the Act, it is for the respondent to move the Sub -Court, Devakottai, in O. S. No. 50 of 1982, and according to the orders obtained, proceed further with the matter. In view of this order of Sathiadev J., I do not think that I can issue a writ of mandamus. The only course open to the petitioner is to move the Sub -Court in this matter for directions within a reasonable time. As such, it is enough if I direct the respondent to move the Sub -Court, Devakottai, to obtain orders and proceed further with the matter, as directed by Sathiadev J., in W. M. P. No. 15612 of 1982 with regard to jewels, etc. Hence, the respondent is directed to move the Sub -Court, Devakottai, before August 31, 1989, with regard to the request of the petitioner for the return of the jewels after giving notice to all the parties in the suit.