AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. N. Kirpal, J. - The challenge in the present writ petition was to an order dated 9th May, 1984 passed by Respondent No. 1 u/s 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. By the said order the petitioner-herein has been directed to get his accounts audited by firm of Chartered Accountants.
In the Writ Petition serious allegations of malafides had been alleged against the respondents. It is not necessary to spell out what the allegations were. Respondent No. 1 has filed his affidavit denying the allegations but no affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No. 3. Counsel for the respondent of course, says that it is an inadvertent omission.
The arguments in the case commenced on 19th March, 1986 and continued on 20th March, 1986. In the late afternoon when the counsel for the petitioner had completed his submissions the learned counsel for the respondents stated that he had instructions to inform the court that the impugned order was being withdrawn. It was under these circumstances that the case was adjuorned to today.
A letter dated 20th March, 1986 has been placed on the record. This is a letter written to the petitioner-herein in which it is stated that the order dated 9th May, 1984 has been withdrawn.
In view of the order dated 9th May, 1984 having been withdrawn the writ petition obviously becomes infructuous.
I cannot help but observe after going through the facts of the case and after seeing the petition and the affidavits in reply that the petitioner did not come to the court till he was compelled to do so. Prima facie, it is difficult to say that the allegations contained therein were completely without foundation. However, I need not spend more time on this except to notice that valuable time of the court has been wasted by the respondents in having taken the decision which it has now taken. It is obvious that the decision to withdraw the order was taken after the counsel for the petitioner had opened the case. In these circumstances even though the petition has to be dismissed as having become infructuous, in my opinion, the respondents must be liable to pay costs.
I accordingly dismiss the writ petition as infructuous. The respondents will pay costs of Rs. 2,000 out of which Rs. 1,000 be given to the Delhi Legal Aid and Advice Board, Lawyers Chambers, Delhi High Court.