ORDER D. P. S. CHA UHAN, J. BY means of this petition, the petitioners who are 232 in number have come to this Court, seeking relief for grant of a declaration that the breach of the rest allowance and the torch cell allowance cannot be subjected to income-tax to the extent referred to in the Notifications dt. 1st July, 1992 (Annexure P-2 to the petition) and dt. 7th July, 1995 (Annexure P-3 to the petition) and for directing the respondents No. 1 to 5 for not deducting the income-tax at source from the amounts of torch cell allowance and the breach of rest allowance as provided in s. 10(14) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners Shri B1. Nerna and the learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 4 Shri S.K. Mukhurjee and the learned counsel for the respondent No. 5, Shri V.K. Tankha. 3. The case of the petitioner, as is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners, is that the petitioners who, while on rest, when called on duty, are given breach of rest allowance and apart from this, torch cell allowance is also provided and these allowances, as is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, should not be computed in the income from salary. 4. The deduction at source under s. 192 in the case of the income-tax chargeable under the head "salaries" is an obligation of the employer. If some allowance is not to be included in the income of the petitioners such as breach of rest allowances or the torch cell allowances are not to be included in the income chargeable under the head "salary" then, the petitioners are always free to claim deduction before the ITO under the aforesaid Act and whether such an allowance is to be included in the salary or not under the head "salary" would be decided by the ITO, and once it is decided by the ITO, then, the same would attain finality and in the subsequent year, if such a deduction is permitted by the IT authority, then such allowances will have to be included in the income-tax chargeable under the head "salary". If inclusion of such allowances is exempted by the IT authority from the income-tax chargeable under the head "salary" then the petitioners would, in the subsequent years get the refund of the advance tax deducted in the current year. Thus, in such a case, they will be entitled for refund. 1 do not consider it a fit case to interfere in the petition under art. 226 of the Constitution of India, as an adequate remedy is provided in the IT Act. The interest of the Revenue has to be kept in mind. If interference is made under Art. 226 of the Constitution, then, the interest of the Revenue would be jeopardised for a long duration, if the petition fails. It is a well settled principle of law that when a remedy is provided, then, this Court though it can exercise its power under Art. 226 of the Constitution, should be slow to use its constitutional powers even though they are discretionary. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submitted that a mandamus may be issued to the respondents for deciding the case of the petitioners in respect of the deduction of the income-tax at source in respect of the objection of the petitioners that the breach of rest allowances and torch cell allowances shall not be held a part of the "salary" and, therefore, there cannot be a deduction at source on that amount. 6. A mandamus can be issued only for the performance of statutory obligation. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not pointed out as to whether there is a statutory obligation for making a representation to the authority and to pay tax only after the decision of the authority as to whether the particular allowances is to form a part of the income or not to form a part of the income. No such obligation is pointed out. Since, there is no such statutory obligation, Ranchhodbhai Haribhai Jadav vs. Asstt. CIT (Guj) no writ in the nature of mandamus can be issued for deciding such an issue. However, this order will not come in the way of the petitioners to pursue the authority making the deduction of tax at the source for considering the matter as the whether such an income should be included under the head "salary" and the tax be deducted at source. The writ petition is sans merit and is accordingly rejected.