# INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL. INCOME TAX AND· SALES TAX, KOZlllKODE v. POOMULLI MANAKKAL PARAMESWARAN NAMBOODRIPAD

- **Citation:** [1972] 1 S.C.R. 298
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1971-08-18
- **Case number:** Civil Appeals Nos. 62 and 63 of 1969
- **Bench:** K. S. Hegde, A. N. Grover
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/inspecting-assistant-commissioner-of-agricultural-income-tax-and-sales-tax-5355
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

Travancore-Cochin Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, as amended
by Act 12of1964, s. 29-Scope of
In 1958, there was a partition in the family of the respondent by a
registered partition deed. In January 1960, it was conceded on behalf
of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, before the High Court, that the
respondent was liable to be taxed only as an 'individual', that is, it was
conceded that the respondent's family was a divided family.
Various
attempts made by the Department thereafter, to assess the reepondent
as Karta of his family were set aside by the High Court, and the respondent and other members of his quondam family were asces"d as
'individuals' till 1964. In 1965, notice was again issued to the mpondent
with respect to the assessment year 1961-62 for assessing him as the
karta of his family, and the respondent filed a writ petition in the High
Court. The Department contended that in view of the arcendment of
s. 29 of the Travancore-Cochin Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, by
Act 12 of 1964, it was permissible for the Department to re-assess the
respondent as the Karta of the family as no decision that the respondents
family was a divided family had been rendered by the Agricultural Ir.ccmetax Officer and the family must hence be deemed to be an undivided
family. The High Court held in favour of the assessee.
Dismissing the appeal to this Court,
A
B
c
D
E
HELD: (I) The amended s. 29 was given retrospective effect from
F
April I, 1958; but it is only a machinery section. It is attracted to an
assessment proceeding only if one of the two conditions prescribed in
sub. s. (I) is established, namely, either the family in question was being
assessed
as an undivided family in the previous assessment yt:ar,
or,
that the family was being assessed for the first time. The deeming
provision contained in s. 29(3) can have application only in cases where
one or the other conditions prescribed by s. 29(1) is satisfied and not
G
otherwise. [303F-G; 307F-H]
In the present case, every attempt made by the assessing authority
to. assess the quondam family of the respondent was set aside by the
High Court and the department had not only not assessed that family
as an undivided family, but had assessed the individual members of the
family as divided members. That is, the question whether the family
H
was divided or not had been gone into and decided. It cannot also be
said that the family was 'hitherto assel!lled: as a Hindu undivided
family'. [307H; 308A-B]
t::OMMR. AGRIC.. INC.OMETAX V. P.M.P. NAMBOODRIPAD
299
(lfegde, J.)
A
(2) The expressiOn 'which (meaning family) is being assessed for the
first time as a Hindu undivided family' presupposes the existence of the
family.
Section 29(1) does not permit the assessing authority to create
a family by re-joining the divided parties or otherwise. If the family
has ceased to exist even before the assessment proceeding started then
there can be no family which is being assessed to tax for the first ume.
B
[308B-F]
In the present case, the family sought to be taxed was 'non-existing'
in the concerned previous years and hence could not be considered as
a Hindu undivided family 'being assessed for the first time'. Therefore,
the 'deeming' provision in s. 29(3) could not be applied. [308G-H]
Additional Income-tax Officer, Cuddapah v. A. Thimmarya 55 I.T.R.
C
666(S.C.), referred to.

## Text

298
INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF
AGRICULTURAL. INCOME TAX AND·
SALES
TAX,
KOZlllKODE
v.
POOMULLI MANAKKAL PARAMESWARAN
NAMBOODRIPAD
August 18, 1971
(K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.]
Travancore-Cochin Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, as amended
by Act 12of1964, s. 29-Scope of
In 1958, there was a partition in the family of the respondent by a
registered partition deed. In January 1960, it was conceded on behalf
of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, before the High Court, that the
respondent was liable to be taxed only as an 'individual', that is, it was
conceded that the respondent's family was a divided family.
Various
attempts made by the Department thereafter, to assess the reepondent
as Karta of his family were set aside by the High Court, and the respondent and other members of his quondam family were asces"d as
'individuals' till 1964. In 1965, notice was again issued to the mpondent
with respect to the assessment year 1961-62 for assessing him as the
karta of his family, and the respondent filed a writ petition in the High
Court. The Department contended that in view of the arcendment of
s. 29 of the Travancore-Cochin Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, by
Act 12 of 1964, it was permissible for the Department to re-assess the
respondent as the Karta of the family as no decision that the respondents
family was a divided family had been rendered by the Agricultural Ir.ccmetax Officer and the family must hence be deemed to be an undivided
family. The High Court held in favour of the assessee.
Dismissing the appeal to this Court,
A
B
c
D
E
HELD: (I) The amended s. 29 was given retrospective effect from
F
April I, 1958; but it is only a machinery section. It is attracted to an
assessment proceeding only if one of the two conditions prescribed in
sub. s. (I) is established, namely, either the family in question was being
assessed
as an undivided family in the previous assessment yt:ar,
or,
that the family was being assessed for the first time. The deeming
provision contained in s. 29(3) can have application only in cases where
one or the other conditions prescribed by s. 29(1) is satisfied and not
G
otherwise. [303F-G; 307F-H]
In the present case, every attempt made by the assessing authority
to. assess the quondam family of the respondent was set aside by the
High Court and the department had not only not assessed that family
as an undivided family, but had assessed the individual members of the
family as divided members. That is, the question whether the family
H
was divided or not had been gone into and decided. It cannot also be
said that the family was 'hitherto assel!lled: as a Hindu undivided
family'. [307H; 308A-B]
t::OMMR. AGRIC.. INC.OMETAX V. P.M.P. NAMBOODRIPAD
299
(lfegde, J.)
A
(2) The expressiOn 'which (meaning family) is being assessed for the
first time as a Hindu undivided family' presupposes the existence of the
family.
Section 29(1) does not permit the assessing authority to create
a family by re-joining the divided parties or otherwise. If the family
has ceased to exist even before the assessment proceeding started then
there can be no family which is being assessed to tax for the first ume.
B
[308B-F]
In the present case, the family sought to be taxed was 'non-existing'
in the concerned previous years and hence could not be considered as
a Hindu undivided family 'being assessed for the first time'. Therefore,
the 'deeming' provision in s. 29(3) could not be applied. [308G-H]
Additional Income-tax Officer, Cuddapah v. A. Thimmarya 55 I.T.R.
C
666(S.C.), referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 62
and 63 of 1969.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated November
21, 1967 of the Kerala High Court in 0. P. Nos. 2979 of
D
1965 and 1395 of 1966.
E
V. A. Seyid Muhammad, P. K. Pillai for M. R. Krishna
Pillai, for the appellant (in both the appeals).
S. T. Desai and A. S. Nambiar, for the respondent
(in both the appeals).
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Hegde, J. In these appeals by certificates brought by
the Department, we have to decide as to what is the true
scope of s. 29 of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act,
1950 as amended in 1964 (to be hereinafter referred to as
F the Act)?
This case has a long history which by no means is
complimentary to the Department. The common respondent in both these appeals moved the High Court of
Kerala under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying that the
G appellant herein may be prohibited from taking further
proceedings for assessing him as the karta of Poomulli
Mana to agricultural income-tax for the assessment year
1961-62.
The respondent was the karta of a Namboodri family
known as Poomulli Mana till March 3(), 1958. The
H
Namboodris in the Malabar District of the Kerala State
were previously governed by the Madras Nambudri Act,
1932.
Now they ar~ governed by the Kerala Nambudri
300
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] l S.C.R.
A
Act, 1958. The respondent's family owned large tracts
of lanls both in Malabar District which was a part of the
Madras State till November 1, 1956 as well as in the erstwhile Travancore and Cochin State. Under the States
Reorganization Act, 1954, the new State of Kerala was
formed consisting of the former Malabar District of the
B
State of Madras as well as the former Travancore-Cochin
State. The new State of Kerala came into being on November 1, 1956. Thereafter the Travancore-Cochin Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 was extended to the former
Malabar District with effect from April l, 1957 by Kerala
Act 8 of 1957. In the assessment year 1957-58, the asses- c
sing authorities assessed Poomulli Mana as an undivided
family.
That order was quashed by the High Court.
On March 30, 1958, the members of the family entered
into a registered partition deed under which the family
became divided. Thereafter the respondent ceased to be
the karta of the family.
Nevertheless the authorities under
D
the Act issued notices to the respondent under s. 17 (2)
and s. 39 of the Act proposing to assess him as the manager
of his H.U.F. for the assessment years 1957-58 and 1958-59.
The respondent challenged the validity of those notices
before the High Court of Kerala. When the case came up
for hearing before a Division Bench of the High Court,
E
the learned Counsel appearing for the Department informed the Court that the Department was going to assess
the respondent only as an "individual" and not as the karta
of his family.
OQ the basis of that representation, the
Court passed the following order :
"Th_e learned Government Pleader submits, quite
categoncally that the
assessment proposed
is
of the petitioner as an 'individual', and not in any
other capacity.
1
In view of the submission we do not consider it
necessary to proceed further with the petition.
We record the fact that the Department does not propose to assess the petitioner except as an individual
and leave him to seek his remedies under the Act or
the Constitution in case he feels himself aggrieved by
any subsequent action of the Department."
Despite this assurance, the Department issued a notice
under s. 35 of the Act on February 9, 1960 proposing to
F
G
H
COMMR. AGRIC. INCOMETAX V. P.M.P. NAMBOODRIPAD
301
(Hegde, J.)
A assess the respondent as the karta of his H.U.F. for the I
assessment year 1959-60.
The respondent again moved
the High Court to quash that notice. The said notice was
quashed by a learned single judge of the High Court on
January 3, 1961 on the ground that it is against the under8
taking given by the Government in the earlier proceedings.
That decision was affirmed in appeal.
Yet another notice
dated November 8, 1961 was issued by the Department
under s. 35 to the respondent to show cause why he should
not be taxed as the karta of his H.U.F. for the assessment
year 1958-59. This notice was again quashed by the High
c
Court by its judgment dated December 17, 1963.
D
E
F
G
H
Section 29 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950
was amended by the Kerala legislature by Act 12 of 1964.
We shall now set out s. 29 as it stood before its amendment
in 1964 as well as the amended section.
Section 29 of the Act (before the amendment by Act
12 of 1964) read thus :,t
"29. (1) Where at the time of making an assessment under Section 18, it is claimed by or on behalf
of any member of a Hindu undivided family, (Aliyasanthana family or branch or Marumakkathayam
tarwad) hitherto assessed as undivided that a partition has taken place among the members or groups
of members of such family or tarwad the Agricultural Income-tax Officer shall make such inquiry
thereinto as he may think fit, and if he is satisfied
that the joint family property has been partitioned
among the various members or groups of members
in definite portions he shall record an order to
that effect :
Provided that no such order shall be recorded
until notice of the inquiry has been served on all
the adult members of the family or tarwad entitled
to the property as far as may be practicable or in
such other manner as may be prescribed.
(2) Where such an order has been passed, the
Agricultural Income-tax Officer shall make an
assessment of the total agricultural income received
by or on behalf of the family or tarwad as such,
as if no partition had taken place, and each member
302
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1972] l S.C.R.
or group of members shall, in addition to any
agricultural income-tax for which he or it may be separately liable, and notwithstanding anything contained in clause (a) of Section 10, be liable for
a share of the tax on the incomes so assessed according to the portion of the family or tarwad property
allotted to him or it and the Agricultural Incometax Officer shall make assessments accordingly
on the various members and groups of members
in accordance wit.h the provisions of Section 18 :
Provided that all the members and groups of
members whose family or t?rwad property has
been partitioned shall be liable jointly and severally
for the tax on the total agricultural income received
by or on behalf of the family or tarwad as such up
to the date of the partition.
(3) Where such an order has not been passed in
respect of a Hindu family, (Aliyasanthana family
or branch or Marumakkathayam tarwad) hitherto
assessed as undivided, such family or tarwad shall
be deemed for the purposes of this Act to continue to
be an undivided family or tarwad."
A
B
c
D
Section 29 after its amendment by Act 12 of 1964
E
reads :
"(!) Assessment after partition of a Hindu
undivided family.-
Where at the time of making an assessment under
section 18, it is claimed by or on behalf of any
member of a family hitherto assessed as a Hindu
undivided family or which is being assessed for
the first time as a Hindu undivided family that a
partition has taken place among the members or
groups of members of such family, the Agricultural
Income-tax Officer shall make such inquiry thereinto
as he may think fit, and if he is satisfied that the
joint family property has been partitioned among
the various members or groups of members in definite
portions he shall record an order to that effect :
F
G
Provided that no such order shall be recorded
H
until notice of the inquiry has been served on all
the adult members of the family entitled to the pro-
A
B
c
D
E
F
COMMR. AGRIC. INCOMETAX V. P.M.P. NAMBOODRIPAD
,303
(liegde, J.)
perty as far as may be practicable or in such other
manner as may be prescribed,
(2) Where such order has been passed, the
Agricultural Income-tax Officer shall make an assessment of the total agricultural income received by
or on behalf of the family as such, as if no partition
had taken place, and each member or group of members shall, in addition to any agricultural incometax for which he or it may be separately liable,
and notwithstanding anything contained in clause
(a) of sub-section (I) of section 10, be liable for
a share of the tax on the incomes so assessed according to the portion of the family property allotted
to him or it and the Agricultural Income-tax Officer shall make assessments accordingly on the
various members and groups of members in accordance with the provisions of section 18 :
Provided that all the members and groups of
members whose family property has been partitioned shall be liable j'.)intly and severally for the
tax on the total agricultural income received by
or on behalf of the family as such upto the date
of the partition.
(3) Where such an order has not been passed in
respect of a family hitherto assessed as a Hindu
undivided family or which is being assessed for the
first time as a Hindu undivided family, such family
shall be deemed, for the purpose of this Act, to
continue to be a Hindu undivided family."
The amended provision was given retrospective effect
with effect from April I, 1958. Taking advantage of foe
amendment of s, 29, the Department again issued a notice
G to the respondent on June I, 1964 under s, 35 of the Act
calling upon him to show cause why he should not be
assessed as the karta of his H.U.F, for the period from
November I, 1956 to March 31, 1958.
It may be noted
that uptill that date the respondent and other members of
his former family were beihg assessed as 'individuals' and
H the tax so levied had been paid. In other words for
the earlier assessment years, the pepartment had proceeded
on the basis that the family wits a divided family.
304
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] l S.C.R.
On receipt of the notice dated June 1, 1964, the responA
dent again moved the High Court of Kerala to quash the
same on various grounds. One of the grounds taken was
that the family of the respondent having been treated as
divided family in the earlier assessment proceedings, it
was not open to the Department to proceed to assess
B
him as the karta of a non-existing family. When that
proceeding was pending before the High Court, the assessing authorities passed orders assessing the respondent as
karta of his family.
A Division Bench of the Kerala High
Court quashed the impugned notice as well as the assessment made.
c
During the pendency of the last mentioned proceeding,
the Department issued two more notices to the assessee
(marked Ex. P-1 and P-3 before the High Court). The
relevant notice for our present purpose is Ex. P-1 and it is
dated March 10, 1965. In that notice the assessing authon
rity, in the purported exercise of its powers under s. 35 of
the Act required the respondent to file a return of the
agricultural income of his family in the previous years
beginning from April I, 1961 and ending on March 31,
1961, chargeable to tax for the assessment year 1961-62
within 35 days of the receipt of that notice. The notice
E
further mentioned that the action proposed therein was
permissible in view of the amendment of the Act, by Act
12 of 1964. The respondent replied that in view of the
partition in his family, he could not be assessed as the karta
of his family and further the partition in question had been
accepted by the Department and that the assessments were F
made on the members of the family, ?s "individuals" from
1959-60 to 1964-65. Thereafter che respondent again
moved the High Court to quash those notices on various
grounds. The Department contended that in view of the
amendment of s. 29 of the Act by Act 12 of '1964, it was
permissible for it to reassess the respondent as the karta
G
of the family as no decision that the respondent's family is
a divided family had been rendered by the Agricultural
Income-tax Officer and therefore the family must be deemed to be an undivided family.
The Writ Petition was heard by a bench of three judges H
consisting of Mathew, Krishnamoorthy Iyer and BalakriShna Eradi, JJ. By a majority (Krishnamoorthy Iyer
COMMR. AGRIC. INCOMETAX V. P.M.P. NAMBOODRIPAD
30S
(flegde, .!. )
A and Eradi, JJ.) the Writ Petition was allowed and the impugned notices were quashed. Mathew, J. was of the·
opinion that the action taken by the Department was;
permissible under s. 29 of the Act as amended.
Now turning to s. 29 of the Act before its amendment,.
B it corresponded with s. 25-A of the Indian Income-tax Act,
1922. The scope of s. 25-A of the Indian Income-tax Act,
1922 came up for consideration both before the· Judicial
Committee as well as before this Court in various cases ..
It is sufficient if we refer to the decision of this Court in
Additional Income-tax Officer Cuddapah v. A. Thimmayya
c and another (1). Therein this Court considered the object
with which that provision was enacted as well as its scope.
Delivering judgment of the Court Shah, J. (as he then was)
ohserved :
D
E
F
G
H
"Under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as it
originally stood, a Hindu undivided family was
regarded by section 3 as a unit of assessment, but
no machinery was set up for levying tax or for
enforcing liability to tax on the members of the
family, if before the order of assessment the family·
was divided. Absence of this machinery was more
acutely felt because of section 14 (1) which provided
that tax shall not be payable by an assessee in
respect of any sum which he received as a member
of a Hindu undivided family.
Income received by a
Hindu undivided family could not therefore be
assessed
and
collected
from
the
members of the family, if at the time of making the
assessment the family was divided. To rectify
what was obviously a
lacuna, the legislature .incorporated section 25A for assessment and enforcement of liability to tax income received by a Hindu
undivided family, which was no longer in. exi$tence
at the date of assessment.
But the new section
went very much beyond rectifying the defect in the.
statute which necessitated the amendment ...
The section makes two substantive provisio1s-
(i) that a Hindu undivided family which has been;
OJ 55 !.T.R. 666.
306
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] l S.C.R.
assessed to tax shall be deemed, for the purposes
of the Act, to continue to be treated as undivided
and therefore liable to be taxed ih
that
status
unless an order is passed in respect of that family
recording partition of its property as contemplated
by sub-section (I); and (ii) if at the time of making
an assessment it is claimed by or on behalf of the
members of the family that the property of the
joint family has been partitioned among the mem·
bers or members in definite portions i.e., a complete
partition of the entire estate is made resulting in
such physical division of the estate as it is capable
of being made, the Income-tax Officer shall hold
an enquiry and if he is satisfied that the partition
had taken place, he shall record an order to that
effect."
A
B
c
Before proceeding to examine the scope of s. 29, let us
D
Tecapitulate the events that had taken place.-(i) As long
back as March 30, 1958, there was a partition in the family
·Of the respondent; that partition is evidenced by a registered deed. The genuineness as well as the validity of the
deed is not in dispute; (ii) On January 18, 1960 on behalf
of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, it was conceded
E
before the High Court that the respondent was liable to
be taxed only as an "individual". The implication of this
concession was that the respondent's family was a divided
family; (iii) Various attempts made by the Department to
assess the respondent as karta of his family even after the
decision of the High Court on January 18, 1960 were
F
frustrated by the orders of the High Court referred to
earlier and; (iv) The respondent and the other members of
his quondam family were assessed as "individuals" from
1958-1964. Those assessments had become final and tax
levied on them had been paid.
Section 3(1) is the charging section in the Act. That
:section reads :
"Agricultural Income-tax at the rate or rates
specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be charged
for each financial year in accordance with and
subject to the provisions of this Act, on the total
agricultural income of the previous year of every
person."
G
H
A
B
c
COMMR. AGRIC. JNCOMETAX V. P.M.P. NAMBOODRIPAD
30");"
(Hegde, J.)
"Person" is defined in s. 2 (m) as follows :
" "person" means any individual or association
of individuals, owning or holding property for
•
himself or for any other, or partly for his own benefit
and partly for another, either as owner trustee,
receiver, common manager administrator, or executor
or in any capacity recognised by law and includes,
a firm, or a company, an association of individuals,
whether incorporated or not, and any institution
capable of holding property."
Hindu Undivided Family as defined in s. 2 (kk} includes:
a family governed by Madras Nambudiri Act, 1932.
Under the Act what is brought to tax in an assessment
year is the income of the assessee in the previous year..
0
The scheme of taxation under the Act is similar to that
under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The liability to
pay tax under the Act in respect of any income is incurred
as and when the income is earned and the total income
on which the tax is payable in any particular previous
year gets settled at the end of the previous year. Section
E 29 is only a machinery section. This Court has held that
s. 25A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 is only a machinery section. The same must be the position in regard
to s. 29 of the Act.
Section 29 is attracted to an assessment proceeding
F . only if one of the two conditions prescribed in s. 29 (1)
is established. Either the family in question was being
assessed as an undivided family in the previous assessment
year or that family is being assessed for the first time. If
neither of these conditions exist, s. 29 has no application
whatsoever. The deeming provision contained in s. 29
G (3) can have application only in cases where one or the
other condition prescribed in s, 29 (1) is satisfied and not
otherwise. As seen earlier, every attempt made by the
assessing authority to assess the quondam family of the
. respondent was set aside by the High Court. The High
Court has repeatedly held that 1 hat family is a divided
H family.
Again the assessing authority itself in the_ pr~-·
vious years had proceeded on the basis that the family 111
qurstion is a divided family. It had not only not asses,ed
.308
SUPREME-COURT REPORTS
(1972] I S.C.R.
that family as an undivided family bctt l11d assessed the
individual members of that family as divided members of
A
.that family.
Hence the question whether that family was
divided or und:v:ded had been gone into in the earlier
years and decided. That being so, it cannot be said that
the family was "hitherto assessed as a Hindu undivided
B
family".
Nor can it be said that the family was "being
assessed for the first time as a Hindu undivided family".
As seen earlier that family was sought to be assessed as
Hindu undivided family earlier but ultimately the assessing
authority had to assess the members of that family as
members of a divided family.
In other words it had held. C
the family to be divided one.
Such a family cannot be
·considered as being "assessed for the first time as a Hindu
undivided family''. The expression "which (meaning family) is being assessed for the first time as a Hindu undivided family" presupposes the existence of the family.
That is a condition precedent. Section 29 (1) does not
D
permit the.assessing-authority to create a family byrejoining
the · a·ivided parts or otherwise. If that is not so, families
which had been divided years back can be again resurrected
by the assessing authorities for the purpose of the Act.
The family referred to in s. 29 (1) is a family known to law E
and not a deemed family. The amendment of s. 29 has
introduced C)nsiderable confusion into that section. At
the time of the assessment either there is a family or there
is no family. If there is a family its liability has to be
Judged on the basis of the Act. If the family has ceased
to exist even before the assessment proceedings started
F
then there can be no family which is being assessed to tax
for the first time. Possibly the intention of the legislature
was to bring in the cases of undivided families not taxed in
the previous yi;ars which were in existence during the whole
or part of the previous year but were divided before the
.assessment proceedings commenced. It is not necessary
Gi
for us in this case to decide whether that intention has been
expressed with sufficient clarity so as to make it enforceable.
Suffice is to say that in this case, the family sought to be
taxed was non-existing in the concerned previous years
and hence cannot be considered as a Hindu undivided
family "being assessed for the first time". That being so
H
there is no room for application of the "deeming" provision in s. 29 (3).
~
A
COMMR. AGRIC. !NCOMETAX \". P.M.P. NAMBOODR!PAD
309
(Hegde, J.)
Looking at the course of events, one cannot fail to notice with
regret the persistence with which the Department was harassing
the respondent.
To say the least the conduct of the concerned
ollicers in this case cannot inspire confidence in the functioning
of the Department .
.
B
For the reasons mentioned above we see no merit in these
appeals.
They are accordingly dismissed with costs.
V.P.S.
Appeals dismissed.