High Court · 2025

8. Mr. ViiaY Shah, Sio. Mr. Late Damji Shah,..Aged.66 years. occupation. " [i.i"Ji{, -ri6.' 5_6-soi;l+7.' u"u Arunti Cotohy. Basheerbash, ',Naiar Hyderabad-500029.

9. Mr. Rachit Shah, S/o. Vijay Shah, Aged. 4'l years, Occupation' Qu-s!1e^1s, - 3-o-soslaz, New Avanti ivigar cotoiy, Bash-eerbagh, Hyderabad-500029' 10. tvlr. Vishanii Shah, S/o. Bhavanji Shah, Aged. 80 y.gars,. Occupation' Business,R/o.FlatNo.405,KanchanlungaComplex,KingKotr'Hyderaoao' R/o ...RESPONDENTS l Petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or Direction more particurarry one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ (a) declaring inaction of the official Respondents, Respondent No.6 in not considering the application date by the Petitioner seeking sworn statements of the part Respondent No_7 firm and that of the Respondent Nos_ members, obtained during the course of its search and se the Respondent No.7 firm on 18.11.2024 as illegal, arbit violation of Constitutional rights of the petitioner. more particularly the d 17.O4.2025 submitted ners, employees of the 8 to 10 and their family izure raid conducted on rary, unlawful and is in IA NO: 10 F 2025 Petition under Section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the official Respondents, more particularly the Respondent No.6to consider the apprication dated 17.04.2025 submitted by the petitioner and furnish the sworn statements of the partners, emproyees of the Respondent No.7 firm and that of the Respondent Nos. 8 to 10 and their famiry members, obtained during the course of its search and seizure raid conducted on the Respondent No.7 firm on '18.1 1.2024 pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner: SRI A.VENKATESH, Sr. COUNSEL, REp. FOR Ms. L.SOUMyA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUry SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 6: sRr N.PRAVEEN REDDY, sc FoR rr counsel for the Respondent No.7 to 10: sRr A.v.KRISHNA KouNDrNyA, Sr. COUNSEL, REP. FOR SRI A.V.A.SIVA KARTIKEYA The Court made the following: ORDER ..'.' THE H ON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAMKoSHY AND THE IION'BLE SRI JUS TTCE NARSTNG RAO NAN DIKoNDA WRIT PETITTON No.l6217 of 2025 ORDtrR: (per Hon'ble Sri 'lttstice P Som Koshy) The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Ar-ricle 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for issttance of a Writ of Mandamus declating the inaction on the part o1'respotldettt No'6 in not consideritlg the application dated i7'04'2(125 submitted b-v the petitioner seeking sworn statements of the partners' emllloyees ol respondent No'7 tirm and that of responclent Nos'8 to I0 and their larnily n-rembcrs whicir were obtained dr'rring search irnd seizure operation conducted on the respondent No 7 fit'tn on i8 I 1 1024 as illegat, arbitrary, unlawful and in violation of the plinciples of uatural J usttce.

2. Heard Mr A.Venkatesh, leamed Senior Counsel' representing Ms. L.Soumya, learned counsel on record for the pctitlonel'' Mr. N.Praveen Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for lncome Tax Departrnent for respondent Nos'2 to 6' and Mr' A'V' Ktishna Page2ofl0 Koundinva, learned Senior Counsel, representing Mr. A.V.A.Siva Karlikel'a, Icamecl counsel fbr respondent Nos.7 to 10. 3 The gricvancc of the petitioner substantially seems to be the rnaction on the part of the Deputy commissioner of Income Tax in not considering the application that the petitioner had made seeking for ceftain infonnation peftainirlg to respondcnt No.7 fir.m and that of respondent Nos.g to I0. l-his intbrrnation is said to be one which was obtained by .esponde,t No.7 in thc course of search and seizure raid conducted on respondent No.7 tjrrn on 1g.l 1.2024.

4. The petitioner clairns himself to be a sleeping paltner. holding 20oZ ol shares in rcspondent No.7 firrn known as N4/s. Swastik Mirch Store u,hich canie i,to eristence in the year 2001. According to the petitioner, in the capacitl, of being a partner in the said firrn and in o.der to protect lris vesLed rights and interests, he was compelled to knocl< the doors of the Writ Court for the relief as sought for which stands reflected in the initiat paragraph of this order.

5. Down the line, there seems to be some disputes that arouse between the petitioner and respondent Nos.g to 10. |urthe,nore. the Page 3 of l0 operation of respondent No.7 firm has, fol some time' been predominantly managed by respondent Nos 8 to l0' As a result of the growing disputes within the family, the respondent Nos 8 to l0 gradually staffed denying the petitioner access to the financial in{onnation pertaining to the firm's affairs and slowly staded sidelining the petitioner. Because of the dispute that arouse between the petitioner and other private respondents' the matter has turned into an arbitration dispute and Mr' A'Venkateshwara Reddy' a relircrd Judge of thc Fligh Court lor the State of Telangana was appointed as an Arbitrator. As things were proceeding, it has been learnt that on

18.11.2024, the official respondents, more particularly the respondent No.6 conducted search and seizure operation at the premises of the unofficial respondent Nos.S to 10 and their family mernbers' It l.ras been contended that respondent Nos'8 and t have misled the petitioncr in respect of the so-called search and seizure operation' rather denied such search and seizure operation to have been undeftaken' According to the petitioner, the fact that there was a search and seizure operation conducted by respondent No'6 and where incriminating materials were uneafthed, this itself establishes his contention and apprehension Page4ofl0 of other private r.espondents committing illicit financial practices and various financiar irregularities without notice and knowledge of the petitioner, rvho is graclually being sidelined. According 1o the petitioner, it is lor t.ese reasons that he had mbved an application before the respondent No.6 u,ith a request to provide necessary inforr-nation collected in the course of search and seizure operation. According to the petitioner. he needs those inforrnatio. / docurnents so as to protect himsclf frorn unnecessary proseculion and unnecessaty financial in.rplications in the capaciti, o, u partner, particularly a sleeping partner. According to the petitioner, respondent Nos.8 to l0 have in fact souglrt for expulsion of the petitioner frorn paftnership fi.m alregin-e baseress allegations and with fabricating avements. 'I'her.efore, for this reason also, he needs those documents so as to counter thc- clairn made by private respondents before the Arbitrator seeking cxpulsior.r of the petitioner.

6. According to the petitioner, though he made sever.al approaches to the office of respondent No.6 and also paid requisite fees for obtaining information by way of challan, still his grievance remained unaddressed and unfulfi ed. Since there r.vas no other remedy / available, he has approached this Court for a suitable direction for Page 5 of l0 release of such infonnation.

7. Having considered the entire facts and circumstanccs of the case, particularly the t'actual aspects as has been reflected in the preced ing paragraphs, admittedly : - a) There is a firtn in which the petitioner and respondent Nos'S to 1 0 are also directors; b) There appears to be some serious family disputes intet'se between the petitioner and respondent Nos'8 to 10; c) There is also an arbitration dispute pending befbre the Arbitrator who is a retired Judge olthis High Court; and d) On 18.1 | .2024, there was a search and seizure operatton conducted by respondent No'6 and it is learnt that respondent Nos.8 and t have made certain statements of oath before the officers of Income Tax Department in respect of the financial status and other necessary infbrmation' Page 6 of I0

8. ln the atbresaid factual backdrop, the question to be consiclered is ",'vould the petitioner be entitled for the relief sought for in the lnstant w,rit petition?,,

9. During the course of hearing. the leamed Standing Counsel for Income 'lax Deparlment has stated that respondent No.6 has not given the info.mation sought fbr. to the petitioner tbr the r.eason that the infbrmation coilected duriug thc cour.se of search and seizur.c are serious confidential documents and a copy of. the necessary information has already been givcn to the unotlicial respondents, and as such, the petitioner cannot be gra'rted this information as it would be amounting to granting confidential information to third parlies.

10. To this, the learned Senior Counsel appearing tbr the petitioner contended that the petitioner cannot be considered to be a third party, as admittedly he is a partner. though a sleeping partner of respondent No.7 hrm ll. It rvould be relevant this juncture to refer to Section 13g(lXb) of the Income'Iax Act, 1961. For r.eady reference, Section I3g(tXb) is reproduccd hereunder: i I I i PageTofl0 "138. D'rrctosute of informatiott respecting assessees' (1)(a) (b) ll/here a perso,l makes an application lo the [ [ Pritcipal CltieJ. Contntissioner orl Chief Cr'tnunissioner ot I Ptincipal Contmissioner orl Commissioner I in the prescri.bed fbrm lbr any ittJitnntion rcluting lrt any (lssassec [recaivctl or obtuincd by atty income-tux authority in lhe per[ormance o'/ his 'functions under rhis AcLJ, the [[Principal Chief C'ommissioner or] Chief Commissittner or [PrincipaL Commissioner or | ()ommissktner orl ('ttntmissirtnerl nny, il he is satis/iatl lhdt it is in lhe public itlterestsotodo,furnishorcousetobe'fttrttishedthe inJbrmution asked Jor and his decision in this behalJ shtll be -final antl .shall rufi he cttlletl in que:jlion in drry/ court of luw;.1 12. Further, what would be relevant is to take note of the reason for ' vlhichtheinformationhasbeenSoughtfol'Thepetitionerirrrespectof the same, ol1 oath, has stated as under: "Furlhermore, $'ith ongoing (tbitrution proccedittgs itlilioled by thc unttlftcial Respontlenl lVo's 8 1o l0 seeking his expulsion -from lhe Jirm on all baseless .fabrication tl' access to thc informulion Sathered during the raid be'ume criticall;' importunl l() tlle Pelilion inortler lo prolccl his t'ested rights and interests Gs tt parlner, and to gather crucial evidence to counter the dLlegotions made againsl him in arbitration' Finally. the denial o./ lhese critical documents severely prejudices the Pelilioner's ability to mount otl elJbctive and informed defense in lhe ongoing arhitralion proceedings' where Page 8 of l0 his expulsion from lhe /irnt is being sought. The information c]nkinecl y,ithin lhese statements is directly relevant to re./uling lhe hass/s.e5 allegations of ,,non_cooperation,, antl crucial ./br cxltosing the ullcgad finunt.iul irrcguluritie.s Ihat uttdcrpin tlr othet partners' oftempt.\ to unlavltrlly oust him. To tleny hitn occe.\s to inlbrmalbn pertaining to his otr.,n lirm,s ulleged misconducl, especia\ ly v,hen,s uch mi sconduct dirt:r:t]_t, intpatts his legul stfitding antl .finantit stttke, woultl be u gross :'iolation ol the princiltles of ntrfural .iu.rtice antl Jair ptay. ., 13. A plain r.cading of the afbresaid t,,r,o paragr_irpJis would clearl.v_ reflect that the petitioner, in fact, wants the infbrmation to be used as a defence in the arbitration dispute pending between the petitioner and private respondent Nos.7 to 10. In other words, the petitioner requires thc information as an ef'fbctive del'ence before the Arbitrator fbr his pcrsonal gains, which would also show that the inlor.mation sought for. is ,ot relating to any pubric cause or pubric interesr. at lar.ge. The information sought for can only be given to the person who is bonafidely entitled for the same, unlike the petitioner, who in his af'fidavit itself has stated that the information is required as an eff'ective defence before the Arbitrator. This in the opinion ol this Bench would not be a.justifiable ground for allowing of a writ petition for the relief sought fbr,_In nutshell, the informatipn sought for by rhe I I : r I i i I I I I ; , ! l I I Page 9 of l0 petitioner cannot be permitted to be used for vested interest' l11ore particutarly to settle scores with private respondents'

14. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that' the Act and the rules framed therein are totally silent in respect of tl-re relief sought for, so far as whether the inforrnation can be provided to any person seeking third party inforr-r-ration tn the absence ol any such clear mandate, there cannot be a Writ of Mandarnus that could be issued directing the oftrcial respondents to providc for tl.rc infbrtnation sought for or any other information as sought fbL b1 the petitioncr'

15. For all the aforesaid reasons' this Bench is ofthe firm view that such information, more particularly when they are collected in the course of search and seizure proceedings cannot be released to the petitioner herein or one of the sieeping partners of' respondent No 7 fitm. However, it is made clear that in the event if the Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax or for that matter any other agency uses the information which the petitioner is now seeking, in any manner tbr prosecuting the petitioner, in the said circumstances the petitioner shall be entitled for such information / documents' In the instant case' I'}agc l0 o[' l0 such a situation or occasiou has not arisen and, therefbre, there is no need for any obseruation or a direction in that r.egard at this juncture.

16. Ilencc, tl-re writ petition being devoid of merit, deserues to be and is accor.dingllr dismissed. No costs.

17. As a sequel, rniscellaneous petitions pending ilany, shall stand closed Sd/. V. KAVITHA DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ,N I J I SECTION OFFICER One CC to Ms. L.SOUMYA, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI A.V.A.SIVA KARTIKEYA, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI N.PRAVEEN REDDY, SC FOR lT [OPUC] One CC to SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF lNDIA, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad IOPUCI Two CD Copies To, 1 2 3 4 5 BSR PVL Y\- i I , I I I HIGH COURT DATED:14107t2025 q. I t iti S14i (< 22 IIJEM ( ..:.} t'n it -: I-l l,) \. --\'l \'..\ \ ORDER WP.No.16277 of 2O2S DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS 1z"P('Atr <OEF: I I I i I I i t t I I i i I t