Judgment :- 1. The petitioner in the O P is the second plaintiff in OS. No. 26 of 1982 before the Munsiff's Court, Kasargode. The suit was one for partition of the plaint schedule properties. He alleged that the income of the properties were appropriated by his brother, 3rd respondent in this O.P. who is the Ist defendant in the suit. To prove his averments in the plaint the petitioner filed an application before the Ist respondent the Agricultural Income Tax Officer, Hosdurg praying for the issue of a certified copy of the return filed by the 3rd respondent quoting reference number M 55 (Ext. P1). The Ist respondent by Ext. P2 order dated 23-2-1983 rejected the application. He relied on S.54(3) read with S.54(1) of the Agricultural Income Tax Act and said that the application for a certified copy of the return filed by the 3rd respondent by a stranger is not sustainable and so the petitioner is not entitled to the certified copy applied for by him. The petitioner filed another application seeking the very same relief by Ext. P3 dated 18-3-1983. Ext. P4 is the affidavit filed in support of the application. By Ext. P5 order dated 21-3-1983 the Ist respondent rejected the application. In this Original Petition, Exts. P2 and P5 proceedings of the Ist respondent are impugned. 2. Petitioner's counsel contended that there is no absolute prohibition against disclosure of information under S.54 of the Agricultural Income Tax Act. It is argued that the Ist respondent misconstrued S.54 of the Act, in passing Exts P2 and P5 orders. The petitioner says that he is the co-owner of the properties along with the 3rd respondent and so, there is nothing which interdicts the 1st respondent from supplying the certified copies of the returns filed by his brother, 3rd respondent, for the years 1969 to 1981. 3. On behalf of the Ist respondent a detailed counter-affidavit dated 27th February, 1984 has been filed. Government Pleader, Mr. Divakaran Pillai, who appeared on behalf of respondents No.1 & 1, supported the stand taken in the counter-affidavit of the Ist respondent. Counsel for the Revenue further contended that S.54 of the Agricultural Income Tax Act has been properly construed by the Ist respondent and that Exts. P2 and P5 are not open to any infirmity as alleged by the petitioner. Counsel for the Revenue further contended that S.54 of the Agricultural Income Tax Act has been properly construed by the Ist respondent and that Exts. P2 and P5 are not open to any infirmity as alleged by the petitioner. The Revenue contends that the mere fact the petitioner is a co-owner along with his brother, 3rd respondent, will not in any way affect the plain and clear language of S.54 of the Act which interdicts the Ist respondent from supplying the copies of the returns filed by the 3rd respondent to the petitioner. S.54 (1) of the Agricultural Income Tax Act is to the following effect: "54. Disclosure of information by public servant (1) All particulars contained in any statement made, return furnished or accounts or documents produced under the provisions of this Act or in any evidence given or affidavit or deposition made in the course of any proceedings under this Act other than proceedings under this Chapter or in any record of an assessment proceeding Or any proceeding relating to the recovery of a demand prepared for the purposes of this Act shall be treated as confidential and notwithstanding anything contained in the Travancore Cochin Evidence Act, no Court shall, save as provided in this Act, be entitled to require any public servant to produce before it any such return, accounts, documents or record or any part of such record or to give evidence before it in respect thereof." Under S.54(3) of the Act there are certain cases in which the particulars of certain documents can be disclosed. Such categories of documents are taken outside the purview of S.54(1) of the Act. It is common ground that the petitioner's application for a certified copy of the return filed by the 3rd respondent, will not come within the excepted categories of cases specified in S.54(3) of the Act. Looking into the language of S.54(1), I should say that all documents referred to in the Section shall be treated as confidential and that no Court shall be entitled to require any public servant to produce before it any such return, accounts, documents etc. The prohibition is absolute in its terms and it makes no exception A similar provision which occurred in the Income Tax Act came up for consideration in Charu Chandra Kundu v. Gurupada Ghosh (AIR. 1962 SC. 1119) and Income-tax Commissioner v. Luxmichand (AIR. 1962 SC. 1121). The prohibition is absolute in its terms and it makes no exception A similar provision which occurred in the Income Tax Act came up for consideration in Charu Chandra Kundu v. Gurupada Ghosh (AIR. 1962 SC. 1119) and Income-tax Commissioner v. Luxmichand (AIR. 1962 SC. 1121). In the former case, the Supreme Court held that the prohibition imposed against the court by S.54 is absolute and its operation is not obliterated by any waiver by the assessee in whose assessment the evidence has been tendered, document produced or record prepared. The matter came up before this court in an Agricultural Income Tax matter in the decision reported in Sankaranarayana Bhatta v. Ganapathi Bhatta & others (1977 KLT. 583). At page 585, my learned brother Mr. Justice G. Balagangadharan Nair held that: "As to the effect of the sub-section, it is in two parts the first part enacts that the records and particulars specified in them shall be treated as confidential and the second part, save as provided in the Act, debars the court from requiring any public servant to produce the records or any part of them in court. Therefore besides directing the records to be treated as confidential the sub-section imposes a ban upon the public servant against producing them or any part of them in court." 4. On a fair and reasonable reading of S.54(1) of the Agricultural Income tax Act, in the light of the decisions reported in Charu Chakra Kundu's case (AIR 1962 SC. 1119), Income-tax Commissioner v. Laxmichand (AIR. 1962 SC. 1121) and Sankaranarayana Bhatta's case (1977 KLT. 583), I hold that the Ist respondent was justified in passing Exts. P2 and P5 orders. The petitioner is not entitled to get the certified copy of the returns filed by his brother, 3rd respondent, for the years 1969 to 1981. 5. The Original Petition is without merit. It is dismissed There shall be no order as to costs. Dismissed.