Judgment 1. The hearing of these cases was taken up after disposal of Civil Appeals Nos. 304-35 of 1997, preferred in the Supreme Court against the orders dated November 13, 1996, and December 19, 1996, passed by this court. 2. The Supreme Court in its order dated January 24, 1997, has held that the nature of proceedings before the High Court is somewhat similar to those pending in the Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Crl.) Nos. 340-343 of 1995--Vinit Narain V/s. Union of India and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 640 of 1995-Anukul Chandra Pradhan V/s. Union of India, and, therefore, the High Court is required to proceed with the matter in a similar manner and on the same lines. At another place, the Supreme Court has observed that keeping in view the nature of the proceedings and the manner in which the exercise is to be performed to ensure performance of its duty by the CBI, guidance through counsel for the CBI could have been given by the High Court without entering into the merits of any of the accusations. 3. There is a controversy between the parties regarding the import and interpretation of the abovementioned portions of the orders of the Supreme Court. We would like to hear the parties on the point on the next date. 4. The parties are directed to file affidavits indicating their respective stand within two weeks after serving copies thereof on the other side. 5. On December 11, 1996, the Director, CBI, had given undertaking that investigation into the conspiracy aspect of the case shall be completed within a period of three months. We hope, the aforesaid time schedule shall be adhered to. 6. An interlocutory application (I. A. No. 270 of 1997) has been filed on behalf of the Income-tax Department seeking clarification of the orders dated November 13, 1996, and December 19, 1996. Mr. L. N. Rastogi, standing counsel for the Income-tax Department, submitted that in the light of the above said orders request was made to the Income-tax Settlement Commission (Additional Bench), Calcutta, to reopen certain disposed of proceedings relating to the assessees involved in the animal husbandry scam in terms of the provisions of Section 245D(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Settlement Commission, however, has expressed its inability to deal with the request on the ground of pendency of the present proceedings in the High Court. The Settlement Commission, however, has expressed its inability to deal with the request on the ground of pendency of the present proceedings in the High Court. We would clarify that pendency of these proceedings do not stand in the way of the Settlement Commission taking action/passing orders under Sec. 245D(6) as may be considered fit and appropriate. In fact, that would be in consonance with the spirit of the above said orders of this court. 7. Mr. Rastogi has next pointed out that a request was made to the Commission to hold enquiry into cases which have been admitted by the Settlement Commission under Sec. 245D(1) of the Income-tax Act at Patna. It is said that in view of the volume of records and also for security reasons, as there is a danger to the records being destroyed/tampered with in the course of transit, it may not be in the interest of the Department to send the bulk of records to Calcutta. The Commission, however, by its letter dated January 6, 1997, has turned down the request and directed the Commissioner of Income-tax, Patna, Bihar, to send the records to the Additional Director of Investigation I, Calcutta. It is said that as many as 22 cases are pending at this stage of Sec. 245D(1). Mr. Rastogi submitted that if it is not possible for the Settlement Commission to hold its sitting at Patna, it may entrust the enquiry to the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar, under Sec. 245D(3) of the Act. 8. We find that the power conferred on the Settlement Commission regarding entrustment of enquiry to the Commissioner of Income-tax under Sec. 245D(3) is discretionary in nature. We have doubts if we can give any positive direction to the Commission in this regard. We would, however, having regard to the significance of these cases, the amount involved, etc., like to know the response of the Commission in this regard. 9. Let notice be issued to the Income-tax Settlement Commission (Additional Bench), 16B, Rowland Road (5th floor) Calcutta-700 020, returnable within two weeks. 10. Notice shall go through the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar, along with a copy of the interlocutory application. 11. In the meantime, it will be open to the Commission to act on its own in terms of the provisions of Sec. 245D(3) of the Act 12. 10. Notice shall go through the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar, along with a copy of the interlocutory application. 11. In the meantime, it will be open to the Commission to act on its own in terms of the provisions of Sec. 245D(3) of the Act 12. These matters will be on the list next on February 21, 1997. Both the CBI and the Income-tax Department shall file their reports by February 20, 1997. 13. Let a copy of this order be delivered to Mr. Rakesh Kumar, counsel for the CBI, and Mr. L. N. Rastogi, counsel for the Income-tax Department.