1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Two prayers have been made in this writ petition, (1) for delivery forthwith to the petitioner, a receipt of books of account seized by Shri J. B. Mathur, Sales Tax Officer, Jaunpur, respondent in this writ petition, and (2) for return forthwith of the books seized by the said officer on the 18th May, 1961, and as set out in the list prepared and duly signed by him and the petitioner and the Income-tax Officer, Jaunpur, except the books of account which have already been returned to the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner is a munim, whose business is to write up books of account of several businessmen. The petitioner has his house in the city of Jaunpur. He brings to his house the books of his clients, and returns them after the same have been written up. In this way, he makes a living for himself. On the 18th May, 1961, the residence of the petitioner was raided by Shri J. B. Mathur, who took along with himself Shri Hari Narain, Income-tax Officer, Jaunpur, Sri M. L. Narang, Inspector of Income-tax, Jaunpur, and four persons - two from the Sales Tax Department and two from the Income-tax Department - to accompany him on the raid, and seized the account books of different parties and brought not only the books to his office, but also brought the petitioner himself to his office. He did not issue any receipt for the books seized by him, and in spite of repeated requests, and the expiry of 90 days on the 16th August, 1961, did not return the account books seized from the custody of the petitioner. This writ petition was moved before me on the 29th August, 1961, and as it appeared to me that the respondent had acted in complete defiance of the statute, I made the following orders :- "Admit. Issue notice. The respondent is directed to furnish the petitioner with a receipt of the books seized and taken away by him. The learned Standing Counsel is granted 10 days time to show cause why the respondent should not be directed to return the books. The petition will be listed for orders on the expiry of ten days." On the 8th September, 1961, when the writ petition came up for hearing before me, a counter-affidavit was filed by the respondent. The counter-affidavit only confirmed my impression regarding the complete defiance of the statute by the respondent. The occasion for the raid made by him and for the seizure of books is stated by him in paragraphs 3 and 4 of his counter-affidavit. He has stated that on the 12th May, 1961, he visited the firm of M/s. Janki Ram Ayodhya Pd. at. Naupurwa in connection with enquiries under sections 7 and 13(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. Section 7 is a machinery section providing for assessment, and section 13(1) is a provision for "production of accounts" by a "dealer", "for the purposes of the Act", by an "assessing authority empowered by the State Government in this behalf". Neither section 7 nor section 13(1) provides either for a raid of premises or for seizure of books. It has not been shown in the counter-affidavit that the respondent was empowered by the State Government, or that he required M/s. Janki Ram Ayodhya Pd. "to produce any books" before him. Accordingly, it appears to me that the reference to sections 7 and 13(1) of the Act is wholly irrelevant. The respondent goes on to say that he had information that the books were at the residence of the petitioner, who was "preparing" the account books of several firms. He thought that in case the petitioners place was checked, it would be possible to get several original and duplicate account books, which might assist him in fixing the correct liability for the various dealers. The provisions for entry and inspection are to be found in sub-section (2) of section 13. Sub-section (2) merely provides for entry into the premises of a "dealer" and for "inspection" of the books of a dealer in his premises, at reasonable times and only by officers who may be authorized by the State Government. This is not a case of entry into the premises of a dealer or inspection, of any books found there. Sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 13 provide for entry into premises, seizure and retention of books. The entry may be of the premises of the dealer or of someone else. The seizure may be from the custody of the dealer himself or from the custody of someone else, who may have the books. In this case the seizure was not from the premises of the dealer but from the residence of the petitioner who is a third person. Seizure under sub-section (3) can be made only by an officer authorized by the State Government. It has already been seen that it has not been stated that the respondent was so authorized. Further, seizure can be made by such officer only if he "has reasonable grounds for believing that any dealer is trying to evade liability for tax or other dues under the Act," and that "anything necessary for the purposes of investigation into his liability may be found in any account ............" The averments made in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the counter-affidavit of the respondent fall far short of these requirements, and do not disclose (1) that he had any "reasonable ground" for believing, (2) "that any particular dealer", (3) "was trying to evade liability for tax". He merely banked upon a possibility. It follows that the raid made by him was wholly unwarranted by the provisions of the Act. Sub-section (5) goes on to impose a mandatory duty that the officer seizing the account etc. "shall forthwith grant a receipt for the same". No request is necessary for the grant of a receipt by the persons from whose custody account books are seized. It is a duty cast upon the officer himself and he has to act suo motu in the matter. This was not done. The petitioner brought this omission to the respondents notice by letter dated 15th June, 1961, and also requested for the return of the books, if necessary after putting his signatures and official seal on the account books. Even then the respondent did not issue a receipt, and with reference to the petitioners communication dated 15th June, 1961, only informed him "that the books will be returned in due course". He did not say anything at all in this reply about the omission to issue a receipt, which was his statutory duty, or the reason for the omission. In the counter-affidavit the excuse which he has put forward is that "as soon as the petitioner was asked to make a statement, he refused to say anything in spite of persuasion, and thereafter he left the place even without taking the list (receipt)". He has further said "that a memorandum was immediately prepared". The memorandum is annexure 1 to the counter affidavit. It is to the following effect : "Shapath par Bayan Shri Shambhu Nath .......... Since we told him to give a statement Shri Shambhu Nath refused and in spite of persuasion etc. he did not listen, and went away. Hari Narain J. B. Mathur I.T.O. 18-5-61." 18-5-61. To say the least this memorandum appears to me to be suspicious, as there does not seem to have been any occasion for recording the memorandum except to corroborate the reason now put forward for omission to issue a receipt. Even assuming that the memorandum is a contemporaneous document, it says nothing at all why a receipt was not granted forthwith at the residence of the petitioner immediately after the books were seized. In paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that account books of several other firms were found in the house of the petitioner, and as the examination of the books was not possible at that place and at that time, the respondent brought them along with the petitioner to his office for examining them. This could not preclude the issue of a receipt "forthwith", upon the seizure of account books. The respondent should have granted a receipt to the petitioner at his residence as soon as the books had been seized. There was no authority in the respondent to bring the petitioner to his office. It appears to me that the respondent was very anxious to get the petitioner to make a statement. He, therefore, appears to have hit upon the device of not issuing a receipt to the petitioner forthwith, but to ask the petitioner to accompany him to his office. The petitioner seems to have accompanied him to his office in the hope that he will get a receipt there. The respondent Succeeded in thus luring the petitioner to his office, and there, in his own words, he asked the petitioner to make a statement and even to have "persuaded the petitioner to make a statement". It appears that on account of the refusal of the petitioner to make a statement, the receipt was withheld from the petitioner, even though it had already been prepared and signed. If the memorandum is genuine, the persuasion was done jointly by the respondent and the Income-tax Officer. It is not difficult to imagine, in the context, the exact significance of this "joint persuasion", both by the respondent and the Income-tax Officer. It appears to have been nothing else but coercion. There is no warrant at all in section 13 for recording the statement of any person when the books of a dealer are seized. After the seizure, the officer "shall be bound to return the books to the person from whose custody they were seized within a period of 90 days from the date of such seizure." This again casts a mandatory duty upon the Sales Tax Officer not to retain the books after the expiry of 90 days and to act suo motu in this regard. In this case 90 days expired on the 16th August, 1961, but the respondent again defied the provisions of the Act, and did not return the books. It may be noted that a request for the return of the books was made to the respondent by the petitioner by written communication dated the 15th June, 1961, and again by written communication on the 18th August, 1961, two days after the expiry of the period of 90 days. The petitioner alleges in paragraph 10 of his affidavit that in spite of repeated requests the books were not returned, nor the list of books seized given to him. These allegations have not been denied in the counter-affidavit. It follows that even when the respondent was pointedly required to do his statutory duty which he should have done himself, he still defied the law. The reason which he has given in the counter-affidavit for not returning the books is that he received a letter from the Income-tax Officer for retention of the books and asking him not to return the same to the petitioner. The letter is dated the 16th August, 1961, the very date on which the 90 days period provided in sub-section (5) of section 13 expired. From the letter, it appears that the respondent and the Income-tax Officer are on very friendly terms. The letter makes it a matter of record that the residence of the petitioner was "jointly raided" by the two officers. It asks for the communication by the respondent of "the result of his scrutiny" to the writer of the letter. The reason for this request is that the Income-tax Officer may be able to "utilize the same for income-tax assessments of various parties." The letter is entirely vague. From the letter, it does not appear that the Income-tax Officer had "any reason to believe" that the books seized will be "useful for or relevant to any proceeding" against any particular party. Under sub-section (2) of section 37 of the Income-tax Act, the entry, search and seizure of books by an Income-tax Officer can be justified only if he is "specially authorised by the Commissioner in this behalf" and he has "reason to believe that any books of account will be relevant to any proceeding under the Act." I suspect that this letter has been specially written to extricate the Sales Tax Officer from the unenviable position in which the Sales Tax Officer found himself by reason of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition in this Court and is not a contemporaneous document. In any case any one possessing even the meanest intelligence could be in no doubt that the request of a friendly officer could not override the statutory mandate. The respondent has made a patently untenable excuse. He has stated in paragraph 18 of his counter-affidavit as follows : "The deponent was under the impression that the letter issued by the Income-tax Officer, copy of which is annexure 2 to this affidavit amounted to seizure of books by the Income-tax Officer." He appears to have been driven to adopt this plea in sheer desperation. After the notice of the writ petition has been served upon him the obvious course open to him was to have done his plain statutory duty, and to have returned the books forthwith. This he did not do. I am not at all satisfied of the bona fides of the respondent in the matter. His entire conduct leaves me with the impression that he determined to terrorize the petitioner, and to act in clear definace of the law. That this was his determination appears clear also from the fact that he did not go to the petitioners residence accompanied only by his own peons, as he might have done, but went there after preconcert with and taking along with him the Income-tax Officer, the Inspector of the Income-tax Department and 4 peons - two of the Income-tax Department and two of his own Department. There appears to be no justification at all for collecting this crowd which could only be calculated to cow down the petitioner by making a show of force. There is no warrant for it, either in the provisions of the Sales Tax Act, or in the provisions of the Income-tax Act. What is still more surprising is that even after the respondent had got notice of the writ petition, he should not (sic) have forthwith returned the books to the petitioner. In a sense, besides defying the law, this determination on his part not to return the books even after getting notice of the writ petition, and his trotting out a very lame excuse for not returning the same smacks of the defiance of the authority of this Court also. When in the course of arguments addressed to me by Shri N. N. Seth, learned Junior Standing Counsel all this was pointed out by me to him, he realised the completely indefensible position of the respondent, and the clear defiance by him of the provisions of the statute. I was minded to ask the petitioner to implead the respondent by his name as a respondent in the writ petition so that he might be personally made liable for costs. Mr. H. N. Seth then tendered an apology on behalf of Shri J. B. Mathur, Sales Tax Officer, and gave an undertaking that the books shall be returned to the petitioner forthwith. On apology and undertaking having thus been given, I desisted from the course, which alone it seemed to me, could adequately meet the gravity of the situation. I cannot part with this case without the sad reflection that officers charged with the duty of administering the law, should so far forget their duty as to throw the law to the winds, and to act according to their own whim and pleasure. The least which is expected of public servants is to obey the rule of law, and not to break the law. I am informed that in consequence of my order dated 29th August, 1961, a receipt has already been issued to the petitioner. A writ of mandamus shall now issue requiring the respondent to return forthwith all the books, which still remain with him, to the petitioner. The petitioner shall be entitled to the costs of this petition. Let a copy of this judgment be sent by the Registrar of the Court to the Commissioner, Sales Tax, under the seal of the Court. Petition allowed.