Court denies mandamus relief to petitioner seeking action against companies; ongoing investigation deemed sufficient.

The court declined to grant the Writs of mandamus sought by the petitioner to direct the Central Board of Direct Taxes and the Income Tax Department to take action on complaints against certain companies. Despite the petitioner's claims of harassment and grievances against the companies, the court noted that an investigation was already underway initiated by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The court emphasized that the petitioner should not disguise a private cause as a public one when seeking mandamus relief. As the official respondents had already taken cognizance and initiated action based on the investigation, the court found no further orders necessary in the writ petitions.

---

---

Issues:
Seeking Writs of mandamus to direct Central Board of Direct Taxes and Income Tax Department to take action on complaints against respondent companies.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed writ petitions seeking Writs of mandamus to direct the Central Board of Direct Taxes and the Investigation Team of the Income Tax Department to take action on complaints against certain companies. The petitioner subscribed to a chit floated by one of the companies and cited other companies as respondents in the petitions. The Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation) submitted a counter affidavit stating that the complaint filed by the petitioner is being dealt with as a Tax Evasion Petition, which is under confidential investigation initiated by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The investigation is ongoing, and the petitioner was informed that the process cannot be disclosed during progress.

The contesting respondents argued that the petitioner, after becoming a member of the chit group and entering into an agreement for the purchase of a plot, started filing numerous cases against the companies in the group. They presented volumes of orders from various courts to support their claim of harassment by the petitioner. Despite the contesting respondents' grievances, the Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation) confirmed that an investigation is in progress, which may not necessarily be solely due to the petitioner's actions. The court acknowledged that even an enemy could trigger an investigation, and once official respondents initiate action, it cannot be prevented, even if the petitioner's actions are condemned.

The court emphasized that if a person seeks a mandamus from the court, it should not be granted if the person disguises a private cause as a public one. However, since the official respondents have already taken cognizance and initiated action based on the investigation, the court refrained from delving into the details of the litigation between the petitioner and the contesting respondents. In light of the Principal Director's statement on oath regarding the ongoing investigation, the court concluded that no further orders were necessary in the writ petitions, clarifying that there is no obligation on the official respondents to act solely based on the petitioner's request.

---