PUSHPA KALYANMAL SINGHVI MRS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal can be disposed of even at the stage of admission, since we are inclined to confirm a part of the order of the Single Judge but are of opinion that a part of the order cannot be sustained. If that be, immediate action on the latter part appears desirable as will be made clear subsequently.

(2.) ACCORDINGLY , the appeal is admitted. Counsel for the respective respondents waive service. By consent, the appeal is taken up for hearing and advocates are fully heard.

(3.) THIS writ petition has been filed by an advocate practicing in this Court and is described as public interest litigation. The writ petition has a dual or a treble thrust. In the first instance, the writ petitioner alleges that the scheme of amnesty propounded under certain circulars and clarifications issued by or on behalf of the CBDT which are indicated in prayer (a) should be quashed for the reasons indicated in paragraphs 6, 6A and 6B of the writ petition. The principal submission in this behalf is that these go beyond the power of the Board conferred under S. 119(2) of the IT act, 1961. In the second place what has been impugned is the immunity or amnesty allegedly granted to respondent No. 3 under the said amnesty scheme. Finally and that appears to be the principal trust of the writ petition, it is averred that the appointment of respondent No. 3 as the sheriff of Bombay by the state of Maharashtra w.e.f. 20th Dec., 1986 should be quashed by a writ of quo warranto or a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ.