1988 (3) TMI 55 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the applicant's self-issued injunctions.
2. Validity of the transfer orders and compliance with injunctions.
3. Consideration of Fundamental Rules 56(a) and Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code.
4. Timeliness and procedural correctness of review applications.
5. Condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Applicant's Self-Issued Injunctions:
The applicant, Syed Mohammed Mirhajul Islam, issued temporary injunctions in his own favor against the Central Board of Direct Taxes and the Government of India, restraining them from executing his transfer orders. He claimed that these injunctions were issued under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. The court found that the applicant could not establish any pending litigation before him that justified such injunctions. The court emphasized that a judge cannot issue orders in their own case, as it would mean acting as a judge in one's own cause, which is against the principles of justice.

2. Validity of the Transfer Orders and Compliance with Injunctions:
The applicant alleged that the transfer orders issued by the Chief Commissioner were in clear violation and disobedience of his self-issued injunctions. The court noted that the Chief Commissioner's order dated December 28, 1984, which directed another officer to take charge from the applicant, was served on the applicant on December 31, 1984. The court found no legal basis for the applicant's self-issued injunctions and thus did not consider the transfer orders to be in violation of any valid legal order.

3. Consideration of Fundamental Rules 56(a) and Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code:
The applicant argued that the rejection of his writ application by Umesh Chandra Banerjee J. was improper as it failed to consider the impact of Fundamental Rules 56(a) and Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. The court found that the Division Bench had duly considered these provisions and determined that the applicant had attained the age of superannuation, and thus, the order for his retirement could not be lightly interfered with.

4. Timeliness and Procedural Correctness of Review Applications:
The applicant's review application, Review Tender No. 2225 of 1986, was rejected for being out of time by one day and for insufficient court fees. The subsequent review application, Review Tender No. 3693 of 1986, was filed with a delay of 164 days. The court found that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay. The court noted that the applicant did not follow the proper procedure by not taking back the review application from the stamp reporter and presenting it with the application for condonation of delay.

5. Condonation of Delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act:
The court examined whether the delay of 164 days in filing the second review application should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The applicant argued that he had filed the application pursuant to the court's direction, but the court found no evidence supporting this claim. The court concluded that the applicant failed to provide a cogent and acceptable explanation for the delay and thus, the delay could not be condoned.

Conclusion:
The court rejected the application for condonation of delay and found no merit in the applicant's case. The court highlighted that the applicant's actions of issuing injunctions in his own favor were unauthorized and not supported by any legal basis. The court also noted procedural deficiencies in the filing of the review applications and the lack of satisfactory explanation for the delay. The application was rejected without any order for costs, as there was no appearance by the respondents.