SUSANTA CHATTERJEE, J. ( 1 ) THE present rule was issued on February 26, 1979, at the instance of the writ petitioners, B. K. Saha and Bros. (P.) Ltd. and another, challenging the letter dated February 16, 1979, written by the Income-tax Officer, "c" Ward, Companies District-II, Calcutta, and a notice under Section 131 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, of the same date issued by the same Officer, copies of which are in annexure "e" to the writ petition. ( 2 ) IT is alleged that the said Officer, respondent No. 1, is purporting to exercise the power under Section 131 of the said Act mechanically and without any application of mind as to whether all or any of the documents referred to in the purported notice under Section 131 of the Act will be useful for any proceedings pending before the said respondent No. 1 under the Act. ( 3 ) MR. Pal, learned advocate appearing with Miss Seal, learned advocate, for the petitioners have argued that the Income-tax Officer has no power, in the facts and circumstances of the case, to issue the impugned notice under Section 131 of the Act to the Commercial Tax Officer, respondent No. 4, for production of the seized books of account or other documents made and recovered in searches conducted in the office of the petitioners at No. 5, Pollock Street, Calcutta. It is strongly argued by referring to a decision in Dwijendra Lal Brahmachari v. New Central Jute Mills Co. Ltd. , that where the Division Bench of this hon'ble court held that the power of the Income-tax Officer under Section 131 is co-extensive with that of a court trying a suit under Section 30 of the Civil Procedure Code read with Rules 12, 14 and 15 of Order 11 of the Code. Section 131 empowers the officers mentioned therein to act for the purpose of the said Act, but that cannot be the only limitation set out under Section 131 imposed upon the powers of the officers mentioned in the said section to act in terms of the said section. Section 131 empowers the officers mentioned therein to act for the purpose of the said Act, but that cannot be the only limitation set out under Section 131 imposed upon the powers of the officers mentioned in the said section to act in terms of the said section. ( 4 ) MUCH emphasis has been laid upon the said decision to point out that the acts done and/or caused to have been done by the Income-tax Officer in directing the Commercial Tax Officer to produce the documents and papers are without application of mind and such direction should be quashed. ( 5 ) MR. N. L. Pal, learned advocate for the respondents, has drawn the attention of the court to the chequered background of the case. While the actions as to search and seizure by the commercial tax authorities were challenged, leave was given to the income-tax authorities to issue notice under Section 131 of the Income-tax Act for necessary inspection without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. Pursuant to such leave, steps have been taken under Section 131 of the Act to produce the documents for taking effective action in accordance with law. Such steps have been taken which are all the more justified and the petitioners cannot come in a circuitous process to challenge the said notice. ( 6 ) MR. Dutt, learned advocate appearing for the commercial tax authorities, has, however, submitted that all the documents and papers are lying in the office of the Commercial Tax Officer and the said Officer has got no jurisdiction to give inspection of the relevant documents asked for by the Income-tax Officer. ( 7 ) HAVING heard the learned advocates for the three parties above, this court does not find that the writ jurisdiction of this court is discretionary in nature. A party must come with clean hands and the writ court would safeguard against manifest injustice. ( 7 ) HAVING heard the learned advocates for the three parties above, this court does not find that the writ jurisdiction of this court is discretionary in nature. A party must come with clean hands and the writ court would safeguard against manifest injustice. In the instant case, the power of the authorities under Section 131 of the Act having been considered by the Division Bench of this hon'ble court in proper perspective, it is not open to anybody to say that the authorities have no jurisdiction to ask for production of the documents and/or for discovery or for interrogation as conferred under the Civil Procedure Code, but such powers must be exercised by application of mind and considering the requirements and/or relevancy of such documents. There should not be mechanical processing in asking a party to produce the documents when these are not required under the law. But the facts and circumstances of the case are that there has been search and seizure. The income-tax authorities have, for effective adjudication, the right to call for the records as done in the present case. Though the petitioners challenged the steps taken for search and seizure and obtained the present rule, the background of the case convinces this court that the present rule has been obtained to stall the proceedings before the income-tax authorities so that no effective adjudication be effected by looking through the records. ( 8 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, this court does not find any merit in the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is rejected and the interim order, if any, is vacated. The rule is discharged without any order as to costs. ( 9 ) IT is, however, made clear that the Commercial Tax Officer may request the Income-tax Officer for necessary inspection of the documents from the office of the Commercial Tax Officer and the Income-tax Officer may also ask for copies of such documents, if necessary, and proceed in accordance with law. ( 10 ) THERE will be stay of operation of this order for a period of three weeks from date.