JUDGMENT 1. This is a petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a practising lawyer. The petition relates to the assessment of income-tax for the assessment year 1979-80. He filed the return. Thereafter, he revised the said return claiming deduction under Section 80U of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act"), on the ground of permanent disability in his right eye. The Income-tax Officer, however, disagreed and denied the deduction by order of assessment dated December 11, 1981 (annexure P-1). The petitioner placed material on record for claiming the deduction (annexure P-2). Aggrieved by the order of assessment, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. That appeal proved to be in vain (annexure P-3). The petitioner, thereafter, submitted a revision petition under Section 264 of the Act (annexure P-4). In the meantime, the assessment for the year 1980-81 was also completed and the petitioner again suffered refusal of deduction on the parity of the order passed earlier (annexure P-5). This order also became the subject-matter of the appeal which suffered the same fate (annexure P-6). The petitioner preferred an appeal (annexure P-7). The petitioner suffered adverse orders on the basis of Circular No. 246 dated September 20, 1978. The orders, annexures P-1, P-3 and P-9 (under Section 264 of the Act) are challenged in this writ petition. 3. The respondents have filed the reply in oppugnation. 4. I have heard both the sides. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted as under : (a) The authorities have erred in not properly appreciating Section 80U of the Income-tax Act, 1961. (b) The erroneous approach is manifested by the fact that for subsequent years the Department has allowed the deductions to the petitioner on the same ground. 6. Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submitted that the aforesaid orders deserve to be dislodged and demolished. 7. Counsel for the respondents was unable to satisfy me as to how the deductions were allowed for the subsequent years and denied for the earlier period when there was no visible change in the fact-situation as regards the entitlement contained in Section 80U of the Act. 8. 7. Counsel for the respondents was unable to satisfy me as to how the deductions were allowed for the subsequent years and denied for the earlier period when there was no visible change in the fact-situation as regards the entitlement contained in Section 80U of the Act. 8. In Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner [1978] 2 SCR 272 ; AIR 1978 SC 851 , it is held as under (at page 882 of AIR 1978 SC) : " Independently of natural justice, judicial review extends to an examination of the order as to its being perverse, irrational, bereft of application of the mind or without any evidentiary backing. " 9. Section 80U of the Act provides as under : "80U. Deduction in the case of permanent physical disability (including blindness). -- In computing the total income of an individual, being a resident, who, at the end of the previous year, is suffering from a permanent physical disability (including blindness) or is subject to mental retardation, being a permanent physical disability or mental retardation specified in the rules made in this behalf by the Board, which is certified by a physician, a surgeon, an oculist or a psychiatrist, as the case may be, working in a Government hospital, and which has the effect of reducing considerably such individual's capacity for normal work or engaging in a gainful employment or occupation, there shall be allowed a deduction of a sum of twenty thousand rupees." 10. The record clearly demonstrated that the petitioner suffered from a permanent physical disability as regards the right eye (i.e., blindness) and as such the petitioner was entitled to claim deduction in conformity with the aforesaid provisions. 11. The orders impugned in this writ petition are thus vitiated and deserve to be incinerated. 12. In the result, I allow this petition and quash the orders annexures P-1, P-3 and P-9, and hold that the petitioner is entitled to get the advantage of deductions in accordance with Section 80U of the Act. The respondents shall, therefore, assess the petitioner for the assessment years in question in accordance with this direction. 13. The petition is thus allowed in terms indicated above, but without any prder as to costs. The amount of security, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioner after due verification.