High Court dismisses writ petition challenging Income-tax Act order; emphasizes standing requirement and limits of mandamus.

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash an order under section 263 of the Income-tax Act and mandamus against an individual. The court found that the petitioners lacked standing to challenge the order as they were not parties to the proceedings. Additionally, mandamus could not be issued against an individual, only against statutory authorities or the State. The court advised the petitioners to seek redress through statutory channels rather than through a writ petition. The petition was deemed misconceived and rejected, with the court directing the issuance of a certified copy of the order to the parties involved.

---

---

Issues:
1. Quashing of order under section 263 of the Income-tax Act
2. Family settlement and income tax assessment orders
3. Locus standi of petitioners in challenging the impugned order
4. Mandamus against an individual

Analysis:

The High Court judgment dealt with a writ petition seeking the quashing of an order passed under section 263 of the Income-tax Act and a mandamus against an individual. The Commissioner of Income-tax had canceled income-tax assessment orders for certain years made in the hands of respondent No. 3, citing them as erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. The petitioners, who were brothers of respondent No. 3, claimed entitlement to a share in interest received from the Special Land Acquisition Officer due to a family settlement. However, the Commissioner found the land subject to acquisition as the individual property of respondent No. 3, not subject to the principle of family settlement under Mohammedan law.

The court observed that the assessment orders and the order under section 263 were against respondent No. 3 individually, and the petitioners were not parties to those proceedings. The petitioners alleged threats from respondent No. 3 regarding the interest amount, but the court held that the petitioners had no locus standi to challenge the impugned order. The court stated that if the petitioners felt aggrieved, they should seek recourse through statutory authorities rather than approaching the court under article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Regarding the second relief sought, the court noted that mandamus could not be issued against an individual, as it is applicable only to statutory authorities or the State under article 12 of the Constitution. Therefore, the court found the writ petition to be misconceived and rejected it. The judgment emphasized that the petitioners' remedy lay elsewhere, and they should pursue appropriate legal steps if they felt prejudiced by the impugned order. The court directed the issuance of a certified copy of the order to the concerned parties.

---