This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the legality and validity of the direction issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Investigation Circle) Shillong, the respondent No.2 under sub-section (3) of section 226 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. By the impugned notice the respondent No.2 in exercise of power conferred under section 226 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) in connection with income tax proceeding in respect of Sri Binod Kumar Bawri. The Chief General Manager (Planning), Department of Telecommunications, Bawri Mansion, Dhankheti, Shillong was directed to deposit the full rent pay in respect of premises to the account of the Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax with effect from the month of October, 1994 until further notice. 3. The above notice is thus challenged in the writ petition on the ground that Shri Binod Kumar is shown as the owner of the property in question in fact does not own the premises. The petitioners in this proceeding put up their claim on the property as the co-owners of 'Bawri Mansion' and therefore questioned the above notice as illegal and without jurisdiction. According to the petitioners, in view of the family partition between the two main sharers the plot of land and building in question fall into the seven petitioners and after 31.7.83 Sri Binod Kumar Bawri ceased to have any share in the property namely Bawri Mansion. The petitioners submitted income tax return and in the said return the income receipt from the Bawri Mansion as co-owner was reflected and in support of this contention the petitioners referred to the intimation under section 143 (1) of the Income Tax Act and appended b the same in the writ petition. In the writ petition the petitioners indicated about the income tax proceeding initiated against Shri BK Bawri for recovery of the outstanding on account of dues receivable from him by the Department. It is also averred in the petition that the petitioners came to learn that Mr. Binod Kumar Bawri agreed to pay a sum of Rs.l,00,OOO (one lakh) per month towards the demand made by the Income Tax Department till the matter was sorted out by the co-owners and accordingly Sri BK Bawri was making payment of Rs.l lakh per month to the Department and the Department was accepting it. Binod Kumar Bawri agreed to pay a sum of Rs.l,00,OOO (one lakh) per month towards the demand made by the Income Tax Department till the matter was sorted out by the co-owners and accordingly Sri BK Bawri was making payment of Rs.l lakh per month to the Department and the Department was accepting it. It was also stated in the petition that Sri BK Bawri might take advantage of the fact that the said plot of land stood in his name and the lease was not renewed since 1978. The petitioner No.l, therefore instituted a title suit in the Court at Calcutta aginst Sri Binod Kumar Bawri and the said suit is till pending. On this ground mainly the impugned notice was challenged. The respondents submitted their affidavit denying and disputing the claim made by the petitioners. According to the respondents at all relevant time Sri Binod Kumar Bawri was the owner of the property and accordingly the respondents lawfully directed the respondent No.3 to pay the amount due payable by the assessee Sri Binod Kumar Bawri the owner of the e building. The respondents in support of their assertion referred to the Sale Deed of land executed on 4.11.1960 showing that the plot of land was purchased in the name of Sri Binod Kumar Bawri by his adoptive father and natural guardian during the minority of Sri BK Bawri. The respondent also referred to the building permission that was obtained by Sri Binod Kumar Bawri for construction of Bawri Mansion. The loan agreement was entered between Sri Binod Kumar Bawri / and the State Bank of India for construction of a building which were annexed to the affidavit of the respondents. As regards the claim of the petitioners regarding the income tax return showing the income of Bawri Mansion, the respondents stated that those assessment were made as a protective measure. The respondents also stated that a huge tax demand was outstanding against Sri Binod Kumar Bawri since long. According to the respondents the authorised representative of # Sri BK Bawri verbally agreed to convince Sri BK Bawri to make payment of three or four lakhs as part payment against his outstanding dues. Since Sri BK Bawri thereby agreed to pay so and accordingly he paid Rs. 1,00,000/- on 23.8.94. According to the respondents the authorised representative of # Sri BK Bawri verbally agreed to convince Sri BK Bawri to make payment of three or four lakhs as part payment against his outstanding dues. Since Sri BK Bawri thereby agreed to pay so and accordingly he paid Rs. 1,00,000/- on 23.8.94. Thereafter the authorised representative of the assessee Sri Binod Kumar Bawri appeared and took two challans of Rs.one lakh each on 19.9.94 but no payment was so far made. The respondents also denied about the existence of any written agreement made by the assessee Sri Binod Kumar Bawri for payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- per month mentioned in the writ petition. All along the rents received from the Bawri Mansion were assessed in the hands of Sri Binod Kumar Bawri a and the assessment was confirmed in appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax in the case vide order dated 20.10.89 in Appeal No.20- Shill/88-89 for the assessment year 1985-86. For the subsequent period also the matter was treated as such, the respondents contended that the petitioner No. 1 Sri Jagannath Bawri who claimed to be guarantor of the loan, taken for the purpose of construction a building by the loanee cannot become an owner of the building. 4. The respondents in its affidavit stated that sufficient care was taken before issuance of the notice. In support of its assertion the respondents referred to the information collected by them from the Shillong Municipality, the Revenue Department namely the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Revenue, the Executive Engineer Electricity Board and the letter confirming over land by Sri Binod Kumar Bawri. 5. Ms Millie Hazarika, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners streneously submited that the petitioners since are the lawful owners of the property in question, the respondent No.2 was not competent to issue notice in purported exercise of power under section 226 (3) of the Act. Ms Hazarika the learned counsel also pointed out that the petitioners were assessed in respect of their income from the same property and the same property cannot be taxed from two heads. Ms Hazarika further submitted that the impugned proceeding was unjust, unfair and arbitrary so much so that before issuance of the impugned notice the owners of the property ie petitioners we.re not taken into confidence. 6. Mr. Ms Hazarika further submitted that the impugned proceeding was unjust, unfair and arbitrary so much so that before issuance of the impugned notice the owners of the property ie petitioners we.re not taken into confidence. 6. Mr. GK Joshi, the learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue, appearing on behalf of the respondents submited that the issue raised in this petition involves complicated question of facts which are not to be gone into a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution. On the own showing of the petitioners, the right to the property in question is yet to be established by the petitioners and for which the petitioners approached the civil Court pointed Mr. Joshi, the learned counsel for the respondents. The respondents lawfully proceeded with the matter and initiated the recovery proceeding. The assessee Sri BK Bawri was given ample opportunity for payment of his tax dues on the basis of assessment therefore question of violation of natural justice did not arise. The petitioners were not the assessee against which the proceeding is initiated therefore question of giving any notice to the petitioners does not arise. Mr Joshi, the learned counsel pointed out to the communication sent by the Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax (Investigation Circle) Shillong to Sri Binod Kumar Bawri asking him time again number to appear either in person or by representative for hearing of the case. 7. Section 226 of the Act is part of the machinery of collection and recovery of tax as contained in Chapter XVII of the Act. Section 220 of the Act indicates when tax payable and when assessee deemed in default, penalty payable when tax in default, Certificate to Tax Recovery Officer, Tax Recovery Officer by whom h recovery is to be effected, validity of certificate and cancellation or amendment thereof are all embodied in the said Chapter. Section 226 envisions the other modes or recovery. Section 220 of the Act indicates when tax payable and when assessee deemed in default, penalty payable when tax in default, Certificate to Tax Recovery Officer, Tax Recovery Officer by whom h recovery is to be effected, validity of certificate and cancellation or amendment thereof are all embodied in the said Chapter. Section 226 envisions the other modes or recovery. Under section 226 (3) (i) the concerned officer may at any time or may from time to time, by notice in writing require any person from whom money is due or may become due to the assessee or any person who holds or may subsequently hold money for or on account of the assessee, to pay to the a officer either forthwith upon the money becoming due or being held or at or within the time specified in the notice (not being before the money becomes due or is held) so much of the money as is sufficient to pay the amount due by the assessee in respect of arrears or the whole of the money when it is equal to or less than that amount. The mechanism set out in the section 226 (3) of the recovery of arrears of tax vested on the authority is of distinct character. It is a jurisdiction which reach out beyond the area normally enjoined by the officer in the matter of recovery of the arrear of tax. The jurisdiction is extended to a person who is not an assessee. The statute has chosen him because money is due or may become due to the assessee or any person who holds or may subsequently hold money for or on account of the assessee.The jurisdiction is not limited to issue notice on such person under sub-section (3) of section 226 to pay the sum due as arrears to the assessing officer or the Tax Recovery Officer. The officer is further empowered to regard such persons as an assessee in default in respect of the amount specified in the notice and to take steps for realisation of the amount as if it were an arrear of tax due from him. The power conferred on the authority under the provision of the Act is a significant power charged with serious remification. The power conferred on the authority under the provision of the Act is a significant power charged with serious remification. It is to be exercised ^ with the utmost care and circumspection before the issuing the notice under sub­section 3 (1) of the Act, the assessing officer is to satisfy himself prima facie of course that the person against whom the notice is issued is the person who fits in with the category portrayed in the section. He is not to exercise these powers hastily, indiscriminately and capriciously. The officer concerned must have in its possession, some materials to entertain the belief albeit prima facie that the person e or the institution to whom he issued the notice is one from whom money is due to the assessee or his person who hold of may subsequently hold money for or on account of the assessee. In the instant case, the Department reached a conclusion of fact that Sri Binod Kumar Bawri is the owner of the property. That conclusion cannot be said to be arbitrary, perverse or unreasonable. The authority, made an indepth inquiry and thereafter attained its satisfaction and took steps as per law.The Department made available all materials on which it relied before the Court which cannot be discarded as irrelevant or absurd. The assessee is not before the Court. Petitioners have relied on title in the absence of the assessee who was treated as owner by the Revenue. The petitioners on its own admitted about the institution of a suit against Sri Binod Kumar Bawri claiming right, title and interest over the property. Writ Court is not a forum for declaration of right, title £ and interest over the property. The writ Court also cannot go over the sufficiency or adequacy of the materials on which the conclusion is based. 8. As regards the contention of Ms Hazafika, the learned counsel for the petitioners about income tax returns on perusal of Annexure A series it can only be said that those documents are only intimation which is sent to the assessee h specifying the sum so payable under section 143 (1) (a). At any rate, the assessment made are only a protective assessment. Under the law it is open to the Department to make assessment on two person in respect of the same income, where there is some ambiguity as to the liability to charge. At any rate, the assessment made are only a protective assessment. Under the law it is open to the Department to make assessment on two person in respect of the same income, where there is some ambiguity as to the liability to charge. Such assessment are made to protect the interest of Revenue so much so unless such protective or alternate assessment is made, assessment proceedings against the party finally found to be liable may become barred by time. It has now become an established practice that in the case of doubt as to the person who will be and deemed to be in receipt of the income, it is open to the department to make protective or alternative assessment. In Lalji Haridas vs. Income Tax Officer, (1961) 43ITR 387 the Supreme Court observed at page 392 as follows : "In cases where it appears to the income-tax authorities that certain income has been received during the relevant assessment year but it is not clear who has received that income and, prima facie it appears that the income may have been received either by A or B or by both together, it would be open to the relevant income tax authoribies to determine the said question by taking appropriate proceedings both against A and B." 9. It may however be added that while a protective assessment is permissble a protective recovery is not. In what circumstances and to what exatent a writ Court can review the merits of the decision is no longer indeterminate. "Judicial review is concerned not with the decision but with the decision making process, unless the restriction of the power of the Court is observed, the Court will ... under be guise of preventing the abuse of power by itself guilty of usurping power Judicial review as the words imply ;s not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision was made..." (Rehearsed from the statement of Lord Brightman in Chief Constable of North Wales Police vs. Evans, (1982) 3 All ER 141 (154,155). Recounting the trend set out in this direction by the Court, Desmith Woolf & Jowell in Judicial Review of Administrative Action (5th Editon 6-007 page 297) aniadverted: 'The Courts have repeatedly affirmed their incapacity to substitute their own discretion for that of an authority in which the discretion has been confined, and there are many matters which the Courts are indisposed to question. Though they are the ultimate Judges of what is lawful and what is unlawful there are certain questions which the Courts are illequipped to decide ." The decision making process of the respondent No.2 in calling upon the respondent No.3 vide the impugned notice dated 19.9.94 (Annexure C) to deposit the rent paid by him in respect of the premises in question to his account cannot be faulted as arbitrary, improper, and perverse. The respondents while invoking its jurisdiction under Chaprer XVII of the Act took into consideration all the relevant consideration overlooking irrelevant or extraneous consideration. Similarly the impugned decision cannot be labelled as manifestly unreasonable that no reasonable authority properly instructed in law entrusred with the power in question could reasonably have arrived at such a decision. 10. For the reasons stated above the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and thus dismissed with costs which I quantify at Rs.5,000/- (five thousand).Inrerim order if any stands vacated.