1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. WRIT PETITION NO.1038 OF 2008 Ashok Gupta ..Petitioner. Vs. The Union of India and others ..Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1039 OF 2008 Savita Gupta ..Petitioner. Vs. The Union of India and others ..Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1040 OF 2008 Shruti Builders and others ..Petitioners. Vs. The Union of India and others ..Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1365 OF 2008 Ashok Gupta ..Petitioners. Vs. The Union of India and others ..Respondents. .... Mr. Darshan Mehta with Ms. Faiza A. Dhanani i/b M/s. Dhruve Liladhar & Co. for the Petitioners. Ms. Anamika Malhotra for the Respondents. ..... 2 CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. 15 June 2010. P.C. : The Petitions are taken on Board for admission and disposal by consent. 2. In this batch of petitions there is a challenge to the constitutional validity of Sections 245 D(4A) and 245 HA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as amended by the Finance Act of 2007. There is an alternative prayer to read down the aforesaid statutory provisions. A writ of mandamus has been sought directing the Third Respondent (The Income Tax Settlement Commission) to take up the settlement applications filed by the Petitioner and to pass orders thereon. 3. A Division Bench of this Court, by its judgment dated 7 August 2009 delivered in Star Television News Limited v. Union of India (Writ Petition 952 of 2008) considered a similar challenge and 3 adjudicated upon it by a judgment dated 7 August 2009. The conclusion of the Court is recorded in paragraph 54 of the judgment which is as follows : “From the above discussion having arrived at a conclusion that fixing the cutoff date as 31st March, 2008 was arbitrary the provisions of Section 245HA(1)(iv) to that extent will be also arbitrary. We have also held that it is possible to read down the provisions of Section 245HA(1)(iv) in the manner set out earlier. This recourse has been taken in order to avoid holding the provisions as unconstitutional. Having so read, we would have to read Section 245HA(1)(iv) to mean that in the event the application could not be disposed of for any reasons attributable on the part of the applicant who has made an application under Section 245C. Consequently only such proceedings would abate under Section 245HA(1)(iv). Considering the above, the Settlement Commissioner to consider whether the proceedings had been delayed on account of any reasons attributable on the part of the Applicant. If it comes to the conclusion that it was not so, then to proceed with the application as if not abated. Respondent No.1 if desirous of early disposal of the pending applications, to consider the appointment of more Benches of the Settlement Commission, more so at the Benches where there is heavy pendency like Delhi and Mumbai.” 4. Since the reliefs that are sought in these proceedings are 4 fully covered by the judgment of the Division Bench dated 7 August 2009 in Star Television News Limited (supra), we dispose of these petitions in terms of the directions issued by the Division Bench in the aforesaid case. The Petitions are accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. (Dr. D.Y.Chandrachud, J.) (J.P. Devadhar, J.)