Writ jurisdiction was found premature over Form No. 37-I proceedings under Chapter XX-C before any authority order.

A writ petition under Article 226 was held premature where no order had yet been passed on Form No. 37-I under Rule 48L in relation to a transfer covered by Section 269UC of the Income-tax Act. The Court treated the challenge as based only on an apprehension of an adverse order and declined to examine the parties' dispute over the underlying agreement at that stage. Proceeding on the basis that the appropriate authority would act in accordance with law, the Court found no present basis to invoke writ jurisdiction and rejected the petition as not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was maintainable to restrain the appropriate authority from acting on Form No. 37-I and from proceeding under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 before any order was passed.

Analysis: Form No. 37-I is the statutory statement filed under Rule 48L of the Income-tax Rules in connection with a transfer falling under Section 269UC of the Income-tax Act, 1961. No order had yet been passed by the appropriate authority, and the petition was founded on an apprehension that an adverse order might be made. The dispute between the parties regarding the underlying agreement was not examined, as the Court found no basis for invoking writ jurisdiction at that stage. The Court also proceeded on the presumption that the authority would act in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable at that stage and was rejected.

---