Writ jurisdiction and search seizure disputes: contested facts and statutory objection under income-tax law barred Article 226 relief.

A writ challenge to search and seizure proceedings was held unsuitable for Article 226 review where the dispute depended on contested facts, including whether the search warrant stood in the petitioner's name and whether the premises were jointly held or used. The rival affidavits raised factual controversies that could not be conclusively resolved in writ jurisdiction. The availability of the statutory objection mechanism before the competent authority under Section 132(5) of the Income-tax Act was also recognised. On that basis, the writ petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a challenge to search and seizure proceedings could be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the dispute turned on contested questions of fact, and whether the petitioner could be relegated to the statutory objection under Section 132(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The petition rested on the contention that the search warrant was not in the petitioner's name and that the seizure was therefore illegal. The Department disputed this by asserting lack of partition in the premises and a close business and family relationship between the persons concerned. In view of the rival affidavits, the controversy involved disputed questions of fact that could not be finally resolved in writ jurisdiction. The availability of objection before the competent authority under Section 132(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was also noted.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertainable on the disputed factual issue and was dismissed.

---