ORDER A. R. TIWARI, J. - The petitioner is a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. It carries on the business of sale and purchase of drugs on the basis of registration certificate issued under the provisions of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act. The address of the firm is 101A-100B, Sector, Sanwer Road, Industrial Area, Indore. On March 18, 1993 one R. K. Soni, claiming to be the Sales Tax Officer, Flying Squad-2, Indore appeared on the premises noted above, and seized the account books as also certain other documents vide annexure P7. The petitioner through counsel issued a notice dated March 20, 1993 (annexure P8) against the aforesaid seizure and contended that the entire seizure was without authority of law and without jurisdiction. The petitioner also brought to the notice of the authority the decision rendered in Jiwanlal Durga Prasad v. Sales Tax Officer (1993) 26 VKN 89. The respondents did not decide the objections as contained in annexure P8, and yet issued the notice, annexure P9, in purported exercise of the powers under section 29(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958. Aggrieved by the seizure (annexure P7), and notice (annexure P9), the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2. I have beard both sides. 3. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents were under legal obligation to consider the objections raised through annexure P8 and should have decided the matter before taking any further action like issuance of notice, annexure P9. He, therefore, prayed for appropriate directions. 4. The Government Advocate submitted that appropriate direction may be issued in this behalf and the merits of the matter may not be examined at this stage. 5. True that the authorities have the discretion to act under the powers conferred by law, but at the same time, it has to he kept in mind that the discretion should be sound. Lord Mansfield in John Wilke's case (1770) 4 Burr 2528, stated in classic terms that discretion meant the sound discretion governed by law and guided by rules. 6. The contention before me is that the actroi of the respondents is without jurisdiction and as such, further action in terms of notice (annexure P9) is inutile and futile and no party should be lugged into futile litigation. 7. 6. The contention before me is that the actroi of the respondents is without jurisdiction and as such, further action in terms of notice (annexure P9) is inutile and futile and no party should be lugged into futile litigation. 7. In view of the aforesaid position and in view of the fact that the objections (annexure P8) are still indisposed of, I deem it proper not to express any opinion on the merits of the matter. 8. Instead, I dispose of this petition by directing respondent No. 1 to consider and decide the objections contained in annexure P8 with reference to the decision referred to above in conformity with law by a reasoned order. 9. It is further directed that the notice (annexure P9) shall not be enforced till decision is rendered on objections (annexure P8) under intimation to the petitioner. Further action, if any, shall depend on the decision on the objections as noted above. 10. The petition thus, stands finally disposed of in terms indicated above, but without any orders as to costs. Petition disposed of accordingly.