JUDGMENT Puttaswamy, J.—This case was posted before me today for orders. But, as agreed to by both sides, this case is treated as listed for final hearing today and is accordingly heard. 2. Under section 221(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), the Vth Income Tax Officer, Circle-I, Bangalore, has issued notice dated September 11, 1985, on a party called "M/s. Gurukrupa service Station, Chamarajapet", calling upon that party to make payment of the amount specified therein failing which, he has stated that he would initiate penalty proceedings under the Act. The petitioner, called 3. The petitioner, called "Gurukrupa Service Station", Royan Circle, Chamarajapet, represented by one of its partners, viz, T. K. Swamiappan, has presented this writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution, 1985. Whatever be the pleadings in the case, Sri. E. R. Indra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the recovery is sought to be enforced against one T. K. Swamiappan, an individual, and the same is wholly unauthorised and illegal. 4. Sri. K. Srinivasan, learned senior standing counsel for the Income Tax Department, appearing for the respondents, maintains that the recovery notices are addressed to the partnership firm and not to any individual, much less to T. K. Swamiappan, as an individual, and there is no justification whatsoever for this Court to interfere with the notice that does not really concern the petitioner. 5. On the very submission made by Sri Srinivasan, there is hardly any ground for this Court to examine the grievance of the petitioner and adjudicate on the same. With this observation, it is proper for this Court to decline to interfere with the impugned notice issued by the Income Tax Officer. 6. In the light of my above discussion, I decline to interfere with the impugned notice, dismiss this writ petition and discharge the rule. But, in the circumstances of the case, I direct the parties to bear their own costs.