Special Leave Petition Civil No 15327 of 1989
From the Judgment and Order dated 187
1989 of the Rajasthan High Court in DB Civil Writ Petition No 2161 of 1988
CS Agarwal HR Parekh SK Jain for the Petitioner
OP Vaish section Rajappa and Ms A Subhashini for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI CJ
This is a special leave peti tion directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Rajasthan dated 18th July 1989
The petitioner herein ie Smt
Kusum Lata Singhal carried on at all relevant times business under the name and style of Ms Lata  Company and she claims to be an authorised stockist of Baba Brand Tobacco manufactured by Ms 495 Dharampal Premchand Ltd New Delhi
Mr RK Singhal is the husband of the petitioner
In the judgment under appeal it has been stated that Mr RK Singhal owns a house No E117 Shastri Nagar in Jaipur and the petitioner lived with her husband at all material times
Mr Singhal was a partner in Lata Sales Centre and is said to be a sub dealer of Ms Lata  Company
A search under section 134 of the Income Tax Act hereinafter called the Act  was conducted at the said premises on 2526th November 1987
During the search valuables and books of accounts were seized on 26th Novem ber 1987 and a notice under rule 112A of the Income Tax Rules 1962 hereinafter referred to as the Rules  read with sub section 5 of Section 132 of the Act was issued to the petitioner by the Income Tax Officer
The notice was served on the husband of the petitioner
In the application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed before the High Court the petitioner claimed return of account books and other valuables which were seized on 26th November 1987
The return was claimed be cause according to the petitioner the retention of the books and valuables was in violation of the provisions of section 132 of the Act
The High Court in the judgment under appeal came to the conclusion that the authorisation for search in the instant case under section 1321 of the Act was not valid or legal
Therefore the High Court held that search was bad
At the time of search the silver and gold ornaments worth about Rs4581089 were found and some other silver and gold ornaments were also found but these were not seized
The High Court had directed return of account books to the petitioner on furnishing photostat copies thereof
The High Court came to the conclusion that the authorisation under section 1321 of the Act was not in accordance with law and therefore the search and seizure of the assets could not be said to have been in accordance with law
The High Court noted that in view of the fact that by virtue of the power under section 1327 and the order made under section 1325 of the Act against the husband of the peti tioner the valuables etc could not be ordered to be re turned to the petitioner
Aggrieved thereby the petitioner seeks to challenge the said order under Article 136 of the Constitution of India
Mr CS Agarwal appearing for the petitioner contended before us that if search and seizure were illegal then the evidence obtained by such search and seizure could be uti lised in subsequent proceedings but the items of 386 jewellery and goods worth according to him over Rs297000 were liable to be returned
We are however unable to entertain this appeal
In the instant case the husband of the wife stayed in the same premises
The author isation of search and seizure in respect of account books and goods which were seized was against the wife but in the proceedings under section 1325 of the Act the husband Mr Singhal has contended and claimed that the ornaments in question or the jewellery belonged to him
Mr Vaish learned counsel appearing for the revenue has drawn our attention to an authorisation issued against the husband Mr Singhal under sub section 5 of section 132 of the Act
Indeed Mr RK Singhal has stated on oath before the authorised officer at the time of search that the same belonged to him and he has claimed the same to be treated as representing his undisclosed income
Mr RK Singhal the husband as his evidence has recorded in the proceedings against him has disclosed the same and surren dered a total sum of over Rs400000 consisting of undis closed cash of Rs 116550 and excessive jewellery worth Rs297750 received from his possession as his income for the purpose of income tax assessment for the current year which he claims to have earned from his business
Therefore it appears that there is dispute as to who is the owner of the jewellery and ornaments or in other words to whom do these belong
If in such a situation the High Court has declined to direct return of items of jewellery and orna ments such decision cannot be faulted
Even though the search and seizure has been declared illegal it cannot be illegal and the question of dispute about the items not being urged before the High Court we cannot say that the High Court has committed any error in this case thereby requiring interference by this Court or in other words that injustice has been caused to any party
It is well settled that the dispute as to the ownership of jewellery in question cannot be reserved in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution in the manner sought for by the petitioner
Mr Agarwal drew our attention to the decision in Assaina  Anr
vs Income Tax Officer Calicut  Ors wherein the Kerala High Court has observed that the goods which were seized from the custody of a particular person should normally be returned to the person from whose custody the same had been seized
The aforesaid may be the position where there is no dispute as to the ownership of the goods in question
In such a situa tion return of the goods to the person from whose custody the same are seized may be possible but the said decision or the observations therein would be no authority in support of the petitioner s contention in the instant case where there is a dispute
397 Our attention was also drawn to certain observations of this Court in JR Malhotra  Anr
vs Addl
Sessions Judge Jullundur  Ors  in support of the propo sition that revenue could not indirectly keep the money seized on the plea that there would be a demand and that the money may be kept by revenue where surrender and seizure was wrong
We are afraid that the aforesaid observations of this Court are also of no avail in the light of the perspective that we have mentioned hereinbefore
The said observations were made entirely in a different context
Our attention was also drawn to the observations of this Court in Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Board of Revenue Madras  Anr
vs Ramkishan Shrikishan Jhaver etc
  in support of the proposition that when a search was found illegal the goods should be returned
Normally speak ing that would be so
This proposition is unexceptional but in the light of the controversy as we have perceived in this case we are clearly of the opinion that this submission will not be of any assistance in doing justice in this case
Mr Agarwal further contended that if the proceedings under Section 1325 for the original search were held to be invalid then all proceedings thereafter would be invalid and therefore the proceedings initiated as a result of that search even against the husband would be invalid and such a statement of the husband recorded cannot be utilised any further
In the instant controversy we are not concerned whether the proceedings against the husband under section 1325 of the Act are valid or not but irrespective of the validity of the proceedings the evidence or testimony as mentioned hereinbefore wherein he has asserted the orna ments and jewellery to be his cannot be wiped out and does not become non existent
After all we are concerned with the contention of the husband that the jewellery in question belongs to him in this case
The aforesaid being the factu al matrix the High Court in our opinion was pre eminently justified in declining to direct return of these identical jewellery and other items to the wife
If that is the posi tion then it cannot be said that the High Court has commit ted any error in law which requires rectification by this Court
This application for leave under Article 136 of the Constitution is certainly not entertainable
In the prem ises this application must be dismissed without any order as to costs
Interim orders if any are vacated
RSS Petition dis missed


Summary:
Disposing of on 3081988 Writ Petitions Nos 8209 and 8821 of 1983 this Court had come to the conclusion that the entire mining operation in the Doon Valley should come to a halt excepting in the case of a selected few for reasons indicated in that order
Since then from time to time sever al applications had been moved by the ex lessees seeking permission for removing the stacked material or extension of time for appropriating the mined material
In allowing or rejecting each such application this Court has been express ing itself clearly that the Doon Valley should be made available for afforestation to make good the loss caused to the ecology
By today s order while disposing of all the pending applications including one fresh Writ Petition in the light of the report of the Monitoring Committee appointed by this Court the Court HELD No application either for original permission or for extension of time shall hereafter be entertained by this Court and the Registry is directed by this order not to entertain such petitions
It may be that such direction may affect some one who has not been vigilant or has on account of some other difficulty or hardship not been able to remove the stacked material within his leasehold area in the Doon Valley but taking the broad interest of the entire Valley into account such individual losses or inconveniences have to be sacrificed andor overlooked and equities can no longer be allowed to be invoked
76A B A detailed report on the afforestation scheme may now be placed by the Monitoring Committee by 30th June 1990 for consideration of the Court on 23rd July 1990
The rehabili tation scheme which has already been furnished by the appro priate committee should also be 73 placed before the Court for orders on the said date
80B C