IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6203 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Smt. Harijinder Kaur W/o Sri Rajendra Singh 2. Smt. Palvinder Kaur, W/o Sri Ravindra Singh Both resident of M/s Bhargo Saw Mill Compound, Mithapur, Patna P.O.-Jakhanpur, P.S. Jakhanpur, town and District-Patna. .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The Union of India through Secretary, Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. 2. The Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, North Block, New Delhi. 3. The Director General of Income Tax (Investigation), Central Revenue Building, Beer Chand Patel Marg, Patna. 4. The Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Central Revenue Building, Beer Chand Patel Marg, Patna. 5. The Additional Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Central Revenue Building, Beer Chand Patel Marg, Patna. 6. Sri K.L. Kanak, Dy. Director of Investigation, Unit-II, Central Revenue Building, Beer Chand Patel Marg, Patna. 7. Sri Kumar Achutam, Income Tax Officer (Investigation), Patna. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : Mr. Ajay Kumar Rastogi, Advocate with Mr. Krishna Mohan Mishra, Advocate Mr. Mrigank Mauli, Advocate Mr. Vinay Mistry, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Harshwardhan Sinha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Patna High Court CWJC No.6203 of 2011 (11) dt.02-09-2011 2 / 2 2 11. 02-09-2011 The petitioners, the owners of a bank locker, have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the action of the authorized officer, the respondent no.5, in issuing direction to search the bank locker in question and the action of seizure of jewelry found in the said locker. Learned advocate Mr. Ajay Kumar Rastogi has appeared for the petitioners. He has submitted that as late as on 3rd November 2010, the authorized officer had sought certain information from the petitioners. The impugned search and seizure was carried out on 6th November 2010. Thus, on 3rd November 2010, the authorized officer had no information about the contents of the locker. The search order made on 6th November 2010, therefore, cannot have been made on the basis of belief as envisaged by Section 132 of the Income tax Act. The learned advocate Mr. Harshwardhan Prasad has appeared for the respondents. He has produced the satisfaction note made by the authorized officer. We are of the opinion that the impugned order of search was made after recording reasons for belief. Reasonableness of belief is beyond the scrutiny of this Court. We see no substance in this petition. Petition is dismissed in limine. Pawan/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)