JUDGMENT Ajoy Nath Ray, J: This is a petition for vacating of an attachment levied by the Commissioner by his Order dated December 5, 1990 upon an eleven storied building at No. 113, Park Street, Calcutta, excepting for the first, fourth and fifth floors. 2. The order of attachment contains a prototype recital which is apparently used by the Commissioner in all matters and the only portion in the order from where any application of mind by the Commissioner can be made out, is from the description in the Schedule of the property. 3. We are aware that by a general order passed by the Supreme Court on September 27, 1983 the Commissioner was granted large powers to issue orders of attachment in case the Commissioner is prima facie of the opinion that the property of Sanchaita Investments or any of its partners or such like is involved in the matter. We make it clear, however, that merely signing a printed form where the Commissioner states, "I am of prima facie opinion", would not demonstrably show that he had actually formed such prima facie opinion. Some reasons for formation of opinion and some disclosure of relevant facts are a must. 4. All persons holding office under the law and all persons seeking to affect rights of citizens or seeking to visit them with civil consequences, are bound to give reasons for their orders. There is nothing in the general order of the Supreme Court which places the Commissioner above this general rule. In our opinion, on this general and basic ground alone the order of attachment should be quashed. However, we also think that upon the facts disclosed in the petition of objection and the affidavits, the order, even upon scrutiny, appears to be as baseless on facts as it is baseless on the face of it. 5. On September 11, 1980 by a registered instrument the petitioner entered into an agreement with Sanchaita Investments for sale of eleven storeys of floor area at 113, Park Street, Calcutta, measuring approximately 1,45,000 square foot at the rate of Rs. 220/- per square foot. The payment was to be made by eight instalments of Rs. 32,00,000/- and a final balance sum of Rs. 64,00,000/-. The first instalment of Rs. 32,00,000/- payable along with the agreement was paid plus a further sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- exactly three months thereafter. 6. 220/- per square foot. The payment was to be made by eight instalments of Rs. 32,00,000/- and a final balance sum of Rs. 64,00,000/-. The first instalment of Rs. 32,00,000/- payable along with the agreement was paid plus a further sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- exactly three months thereafter. 6. Two days later, on 13th December 1980 the first raids took place upon the concern of Sanchaita Investments. 7. On March 24, 1981 two registered instruments were entered into between the petitioner and Sanchaita Investments copies whereof are annexed to the petition of objection as Annexures 'G' and 'H', by the first of which the earlier agreement of September 1980 was recited and cancelled and a fresh agreement for sale of the first, fourth and fifth floors of the same building entered into. 8. By the second instrument dated March 24, 1981 the actual sale of the first and fourth floors took place. This second agreement is also registered and it records a further payment (in cash) by Sanchaita Investments of 11.90 lacs, being the balance purchase price for the two floors. The earlier payment of Rs. 42 lacs was being taken note of and given credit to Sanchaita Investments in this regard. 9. The fourth agreement between the parties was entered into on May 11, 1981 and this was with regard to the fifth floor of the said premises. Though the fifth floor had not been then constructed, payment therefor was again being made in full by Sanchaita Investments (again in cash) to the extent of Rs. 26.95 lacs. 10. In the proceeding had in an Original Side Suit filed against Sanchaita Investments, Joint Administrators took possession of the first and fourth floors and those have now been sold. The Commissioner makes no grievance thereto and also leaves the same out of his order of attachment. 11. With regard to the fifth floor, that again is outside the order of attachment and he same has been sold pursuant to an order of the Supreme Court of India at the rate of approximately Rs. 550/- per square foot. 12. Mr. The Commissioner makes no grievance thereto and also leaves the same out of his order of attachment. 11. With regard to the fifth floor, that again is outside the order of attachment and he same has been sold pursuant to an order of the Supreme Court of India at the rate of approximately Rs. 550/- per square foot. 12. Mr. Anindya Mitra, appearing on behalf of the Commissioner, has stressed the fact that when the Bureaue of Investigations in 1982 had called for the documents from Anandilall poddar in relation to the said building, they had made over copies of the second instrument dated March 24, 1981 and of the agreement dated May 11, 1981. They did not supply copies of the cancelled agreement of September 11, 1980 or the agreement of cancellation, being the first instrument dated March 24, 1981. 13. However, the second instrument of March 24, 1981, in Clause 4, re-date, where mention is also made of the first payment of Rs. 42 lacs by Sanfers to an agreement of an even date which is the first instrument of that chaity Investments. If any investigating authority were further to inquire into this other agreement of even date, it would also come to know of the agreement of September 11, 1980, because the same is recited in this agreement, being the first one of March 24, 1981. 14. However, no such investigation was attempted in 1982 or at my reasonable time thereafter. 15. From the opposition of the Commissioner we find that the only reason why the Commissioner was spurred into action for issuing the notice of attachment is an officious report sent by one Shibatosh Roy, Investigator. The said Investigator was not appointed by the Commissioner. The said Investigator was not interrogated by the Commissioner after receipt of his investigation report which was sent purely on his own. Under these circumstances, the Commissioner appears to have acted upon this report and this report alone, received some five or six years after the actual event. The Commissioner is no doubt clothed with large powers to issue attachment under the Supreme Court order. But it should be realised that the larger the power the greater should be the restraint to be exercised in using the same. The Commissioner is no doubt clothed with large powers to issue attachment under the Supreme Court order. But it should be realised that the larger the power the greater should be the restraint to be exercised in using the same. In the instant case, we find that the prototype order has been sent out for attachment upon a most flimsy report, to which the mind of the Commissioner cannot be shown to have been properly or at all addressed, by production of any contemporary relevant record. 16. The Commissioner argues that the cancellation document of March 24, 1981 is a sham document. There is nothing to prove the same. There is nothing to show that the interest of Sanchaita Investments in the said building ever expanded again beyond the strict limitation to three floors, viz. the first, the fourth and the fifth. The objecting petitioner has shown in their balance-sheet moneys over Rs. 2,50,00,000/- collected from purchasers of floor areas, and these include numerous other parties than Sanchaita Investments. They have given in the affidavit-in-reply a list of names of these parties who number 125. Amongst these, only no. 71 is Sanchaita Investments. 17. The Commissioner would today have us hold that the agreement of September 11, 1980 is uncancelled. He would have us hold that the Commissioner of Sanchaita Investments is still entitled to the entire building at the rate of Rs. 220/- per square foot and that the 124 several occupiers must make up the balance, according to what the Commissioner understands to be today's market price, so as to free the entire building from attachment. It would be an extremely large sum of money, coming probably to 5 or 10 crore rupees. Anandilal Poddar being the Constructor and the taker of money from these occupiers, has attacked the order of attachment and there might well be other individual purchaser occupiers objecting to this very same attachment order. We are unable to accede to the contentions of the Commissioner on the basis of nothing being shown which can expose any of the four registered instruments and especially the two registered instruments of March 24, 1981 to either sham or collusive or in any other manner lacking in complete and binding legal effect. 18. We are unable to accede to the contentions of the Commissioner on the basis of nothing being shown which can expose any of the four registered instruments and especially the two registered instruments of March 24, 1981 to either sham or collusive or in any other manner lacking in complete and binding legal effect. 18. In paragraph 11 of the affidavit-in-opposition, the Commissioner has said that on March 24, 1981 the foundation work of No. 113, Park Street, Calcutta had not been completed. This was denied in the affidavit-it-reply. The Commissioner argued that since the foundation work had not been completed the time for Sanchita Investments to pay any money apart from the initial payment of Rs. 32 lacs had not come and, therefore, the pretext that Sanchaita Investments cancelled the agreement for lack of funds is not to be believed. The statement in paragraph 11 of the said affidavit-in-opposition was verified as information derived from records. No records were produced to substantiate the information. On the other hand, in Clause 2 of the second instrument of March 24, 1981 supplied to the West Bengal Bureau of Investigations in 1982 it is mentioned that the first floor of the proposed building has already been completed. We mention these facts in detail only to try and impress upon the Commissioner that his affidavits are not to be affirmed without looking into matters seriously and the orders of attachment are not to be sent out without actual formation of a prima fade opinion of a case for attachment which might have some hope of success under an impartial scrutiny in a Court of law. 19. Under the above circumstances, we have no hesitation in lifting the order of attachment forthwith. Reluctantly, however, looking into the nature of the case and the baseless order of attachment issued, we impose token costs of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by the Commissioner to the objecting petitioner. In case attachments of this nature continue in future, we might have to consider imposition of heavier costs. The objecting petitioner would be at liberty to advertise the purport and effect of this order since the initial order of attachment had also been advertised. All parties and all others concerned will be at liberty to act on a signed copy of the minutes of the operative part of this Judgment and Order upon the usual undertakings. The objecting petitioner would be at liberty to advertise the purport and effect of this order since the initial order of attachment had also been advertised. All parties and all others concerned will be at liberty to act on a signed copy of the minutes of the operative part of this Judgment and Order upon the usual undertakings. Stay of operation of this Judgment and Order is asked for. Such prayer is refused. Prabir Kumar Mujumdar, J: I agree. Order quashed.