ORDER Shantanu Kemkar, J. This order shall also govern disposal of Writ Petn. No. 6775 of 2010, as according to learned counsel for the parties, the facts and questions of law involved in both these writ petitions are identical. For the sake of convenience, the facts are taken from Writ Petn. No. 6774 of 2010. 2. This writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred against the issuance of warrant of authorization dt. 5th March, 2010 by the first respondent under s. 132 of the IT Act, 1961 (for short the Act). 3. The petitioner claims and avers in paras 5.1 to 5.3 of the petition that as a result of partition, out of the larger HUF of M/s. Motilal Tejram, the present unit of HUF of M/s. Tejram Omprakash (the petitioner) had come into existence long back. In the earlier larger HUF, Karta of the present HUF Shri Omprakash Gupta, his brothers Shri Ravindra Kumar Gupta and Shri Rasnidhi Kumar Gupta were also the members. All these three brothers separated long back. The premises situated at 564/2, M.G. Road, Indore which consists of two independent buildings, namely--front building and back building having same municipal number. Out of the two separate buildings the front portion is in the occupation, possession and control of the petitioner HUF, his wife and two major sons, namely--Nitesh Kumar Gupta and Rohit Kumar Gupta and is being used by the petitioner for its electrical business which is being carried in the name and style of M/s. Basant Electricals. The same front portion of the building is being used by Shri Omprakash Gupta and his family members as their residence. As regards the backside of the said premises at 564/2, M.G. Road, Indore the same is in occupation and possession of other group of separated members of the family headed by Shri Rasnidhi Kumar Gupta, the elder brother of the Karta of the present petitioner HUF. The petitioner further claims that these two independent groups of family are not having any connection in any manner whatsoever regarding their business activities. 4. According to the petitioner on 11th March, 2010 at 8:30 a.m., the raiding party consisting of the officers of the IT Department appeared at the petitioner's premises and informed Karta of the petitioner HUF Omprakash Gupta that a warrant of authorization under s. 132(1) dt. 4. According to the petitioner on 11th March, 2010 at 8:30 a.m., the raiding party consisting of the officers of the IT Department appeared at the petitioner's premises and informed Karta of the petitioner HUF Omprakash Gupta that a warrant of authorization under s. 132(1) dt. 5th March, 2010 had been issued by the first respondent--Director of IT (Inv.) Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, Bhopal against M/s. Basant Electricals, the firm belonging to petitioner HUF for conducting the search and seizure. The warrant of authorization was shown to him mentioning therein that it had been issued against "K.S. City (P) Ltd., Basant Electricals" 564/2 M.G. Road, Indore. After perusal of the warrant, the Karta of the petitioner HUF explained to the officers that the warrant is not for search and seizure of its properties, but the officers paid no heed and conducted the search of the petitioner's premises. The raiding party prepared a Panchanama and seized the computers belonging to the petitioner containing the data of its account books. Thereafter even without supplying copy of the seizure memo, the raiding party unauthorizedly removed the seized property. Feeling aggrieved by issuance of warrant of authorization and the action of search and seizure, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 5. In the return, in reply to paras 5.1 to 5.3 regarding facts as stated above and pleaded by the petitioner regarding the constitution of HUF and a statement that the petitioner has no connection whatsoever with the other group of members of earlier larger HUF, the respondents have stated that the same is an averment of records and hence needs no comments. Having stated so, the respondents have justified their action of search and seizure, stating that the requirements of s. 132 of the Act have been duly complied with. 6. Heard learned senior counsel for the parties and perused the record pertaining to issuance of warrant of authorization, search and seizure produced before us on the basis of an order being passed to that effect. 7. 6. Heard learned senior counsel for the parties and perused the record pertaining to issuance of warrant of authorization, search and seizure produced before us on the basis of an order being passed to that effect. 7. It is pertinent to mention here that while considering the prayer for grant of interim relief, this Court by interim order had directed the respondents to continue with the assessment proceedings and to pass a final order, but restrained the respondents from taking any coercive steps against the petitioner with a further observation that the assessment order as may be passed shall be subject to result of the writ petition. 8. Shri G.M. Chaphekar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has argued that factual aspects which have been pleaded in paras 5.1 to 5.3 of the writ petition regarding formation of new HUF after partition of the larger HUF and the carrying of the business by both the separated groups independently having not been denied by the respondents, there remains no challenge to the petitioner's contention to the effect that it has no connection whatsoever with the business of the other separated group against whom only according to the petitioner the search and seizure was authorized. 9. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner referring to s. 132 of the Act contended that for holding the search and seizure valid, the strict compliance of requirement of s. 132 should be there which includes that the authority must be in possession of information and must form an opinion that there is reason to believe that the books of accounts or other documents which will be useful for or relevant to any proceedings under the IT Act have not been, or would not be disclosed, or produced by any person to whom a summons or notice under the Act is issued. He argued that in the present case there was no information available with the authority to form an opinion that there is reason to believe against the petitioner. He further argued that the averments made by the respondents in the return relating to the material found during the search cannot be made basis for justifying the issuance of authorization letter for search and seizure in respect of the petitioner's property. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the various judgments including Vindhya Metal Corporation & Ors. He further argued that the averments made by the respondents in the return relating to the material found during the search cannot be made basis for justifying the issuance of authorization letter for search and seizure in respect of the petitioner's property. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the various judgments including Vindhya Metal Corporation & Ors. vs. CIT (1983) 36 CTR (All) 238 : (1985) 156 ITR 233 (All) affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Vindhya Metal Corporation & Ors. (1997) 139 CTR (SC) 495 : (1997) 224 ITR 614 (SC), Ajit Jain vs. Union of India (2000) 159 CTR (Del) 204 : (2000) 242 ITR 302 (Del) affirmed by the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Ajit Jain (2003) 181 CTR (SC) 22 : (2003) 260 ITR 80 (SC), Suresh Chand Agarwal vs. Director General of IT (Inv.) & Ors. (2004) 191 CTR (All) 274 : (2004) 269 ITR 22 (All), Smt. Kavita Agarwal vs. Director of IT (Inv.) & Ors. (2003) 185 CTR (All) 129 : (2003) 264 ITR 472 (All) and ITO vs. Seth Bros. (1969) 74 ITR 836 (SC). 10. On the other hand Shri R.L. Jain, learned senior counsel for the Revenue in support of his contention that there is no violation of any procedure regarding search and seizure and the scope of interference in such matters in a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited has placed reliance on the various judgments viz.--Pooran Mal vs. Director of Inspection (Inv.) & Ors. 1974 CTR (SC) 25 : (1974) 93 ITR 505 (SC), Gwalior Citizen Sakh Sahakarita Maryadit vs. Union of India & Ors. (2011) 333 ITR 196 (MP), Dy. Director of IT (Inv.) & Ors. vs. Mahesh Kumar Agarwal (2003) 182 CTR (Cal) 324 : (2003) 262 ITR 338 (Col), Southern Herbals Ltd. vs. Director of IT (Inv.) & Ors. (1994) 207 ITR 55 (Kar), Jai Bhagwan Om Parkash vs. Director of Inspection & Ors. (1992) 105 CTR (P & H) 36, Takshtia Educational Society vs. Director of IT (Inv.) & Ors. (2005) 193 CTR (Pat) 193 : (2005) 272 ITR 274 (Pat) and Prabhubhai Vastabhai Patel vs. R.P. Meena, (1997) 139 CTR (Guj) 428 : (1997) 226 ITR 781 (Guj). 11. (1992) 105 CTR (P & H) 36, Takshtia Educational Society vs. Director of IT (Inv.) & Ors. (2005) 193 CTR (Pat) 193 : (2005) 272 ITR 274 (Pat) and Prabhubhai Vastabhai Patel vs. R.P. Meena, (1997) 139 CTR (Guj) 428 : (1997) 226 ITR 781 (Guj). 11. Sec. 132 of the Act which is relevant for deciding the issue involved in the matter reads thus: Sec. 132(1)--Where the Director General or Director or the Chief CIT or CIT or Addl. Director or Addl. CIT or Jt. Director or Jt. CIT in consequence of information in his possession, has reason to believe that-- (a) any person to whom a summons under sub-s. (1) of s. 37 of the Indian IT Act, 1922 (11 of 1922) or under sub-s. (1) of s. 131 of this Act, or a notice under sub-s. (4) of s. 22 of the Indian IT Act 1922, or under sub-s. (1) of s. 142 of this Act was issued to produce, or cause to be produced, any books of account or other documents has omitted or failed to produce, or cause to be produced, such books of account or other document as required by such summons or notice, or (b) any person to whom a summons or notice as aforesaid has been or might be issued will not, or would not, produce or cause to be produced, any books of account or other documents which will be useful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under the Indian IT Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or under this Act, (rest is not relevant) 12. On a close reading of s. 132, it appears that for exercising powers of search and seizure under s. 132 of the Act, the authorized officer should possess information and in consequence of such information he should have reason to believe that any person to whom a summons or notice under s. 37 of the IT Act, 1922 or under sub-s. (1) of s. 131 of the Act or a notice under sub-s. (4) of s. 22 of the Indian IT Act, 1922 or under sub-s. (1) of s.142 of the Act has been or might be issued will not or would not produce or cause to be produced any books of account or other documents which will be useful for or relevant to any proceeding under the IT Act, 1922 or under the Act. 13. 13. The power of search and seizure as also the scope of interference in a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India have been examined by various High Courts as also by the Supreme Court on number of occasions. It has been held that in order to justify the action of issuance of authorization in favour of the designated officer to search the premises and to exercise the powers set out therein the authorities must have relevant material on the basis of which they could form an opinion that they have to believe that action under s.132 would be justifiable. In the absence of any relevant material, the authority would be acting in excess of his powers and in violation of the mandatory requirements of s. 132 and the action of the authority cannot be sustained, if such action is subject-matter of challenge in a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court in case of challenge if comes to the conclusion that there was no relevant material before the authority to form an opinion under s. 132, it can interfere in the matter in exercise of its powers under Art. 226of the Constitution of India. [See Harmel Singh vs. Union of India : (1993) 112 CTR (P & H) 1 : (1993) 204 ITR 334 (P & H)]. The Jurisdiction under s. 132 can be exercised on the formation of a belief and the belief is to be formed on the basis of receipt of Information by the authorizing officer and the information must be something more than a mere rumor, or a gossip, or a hunch. The satisfaction must be based on the ground what a prudent man would believe. [See L.R. Gupta vs. Union of India (1992) 101 CTR (Del) 179 : (1992) 194 ITR 32 (Del)]. It is open to the Court to examine the question whether the reasons for the belief have a rational connection or a relevant bearing to the information of the belief and are not extraneous or irrelevant to the purpose of the section [See S. Narayanappa vs. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 219 (SC)]. It is open to the Court to examine the question whether the reasons for the belief have a rational connection or a relevant bearing to the information of the belief and are not extraneous or irrelevant to the purpose of the section [See S. Narayanappa vs. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 219 (SC)]. In the case of Ajit Jain vs. Union of India (supra), the view taken by the Delhi High Court was affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Union, of India vs. Ajit Jain (supra) that the sufficiency or otherwise of the information cannot be examined by the Court in the writ jurisdiction, but the existence of information and its relevance to the formation of the belief is open to judicial scrutiny because it is the foundation of the condition precedent for exercise of a serious power of search of a private property or person, and to prevent violation of the privacy of a citizen. The Courts can also examine on the material available that any reasonable person can have arrived at a conclusion that the search or seizure should be authorized. 14. The sum and substance of the judgments cited by both the sides and the principle that emerged has been summarized by Gujarat High Court in the case of Prabhubhai Vastabhai Patel vs. R.P. Meena (supra) as under: “(a) The authority must be in possession of the information and must form an opinion that there is reason to believe that the article or property has not been or would not be disclosed for the purposes of the Act. (b) The information must be something more than mere rumour or gossip or hunch, (c) The information must exist before the opinion is formed. (d) The authorized person must actively apply his mind to the information in his possession and shall form opinion whether there is reason to believe or not. The opinion must be formed on the basis of the material available at that time. (e) The opinion must be based on the material which is available and it should not be formed on the basis of extraneous or irrelevant material. (f) That the formation of opinion shall have rational connection and bearing to the reasons for such opinion. The opinion must be formed on the basis of the material available at that time. (e) The opinion must be based on the material which is available and it should not be formed on the basis of extraneous or irrelevant material. (f) That the formation of opinion shall have rational connection and bearing to the reasons for such opinion. The formation of opinion should be based on active application of mind and be bona fide and not be accentuated by mala fide, bias or based on extraneous or irrelevant material. The belief must be bona fide and cogently supported. The Courts have further held that the existence or otherwise of the condition precedent is open to the judicial scrutiny. (g) The Court would examine whether the authorised person had material before it on which he could form the opinion whether there is rational connection between the information possessed and the opinion formed. However, the Court would not sit in appeal over the opinion formed by the authorised person if the authorised person had information in his possession and the opinion formed is on the basis of such material. The Court would not examine whether the material possessed was sufficient to form an opinion. (h) The Court cannot go into the question of aptness or sufficiency of the grounds upon which the subjective satisfaction in based. (i) If the belief is bona fide and is cogently supported, the Court will not interfere with or sit in appeal over it. 15. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position, it is to be seen that in the present case, whether the requirement of s. 132 about information and formation of opinion has been complied with or not. 16. In order to find out as to what information was possessed by the authority in the present case against the petitioner so as to form an opinion that there is reason to believe that the article or property has not been or would not be disclosed by the petitioner for the purposes of the Act, we have gone through the record produced by the Revenue. Having gone through the record we find that the Asstt. Director of IT (Inv.). Gwalior considered the information which was available in respect of the other group i.e., K.S. Oil Group and its associate companies. He had taken into consideration the investment in land for residential colony at village-Jaitpur, Tehsil-Sanver. Having gone through the record we find that the Asstt. Director of IT (Inv.). Gwalior considered the information which was available in respect of the other group i.e., K.S. Oil Group and its associate companies. He had taken into consideration the investment in land for residential colony at village-Jaitpur, Tehsil-Sanver. District-Indore by Ms. K.S. City (P) Ltd. In this respect, though names of various companies belonging to the other group find place but there is no mention of the name of the petitioner or about existence of any information about the petitioner. Except the mention of the petitioner to the extent "in fact, originally his family is engaged in the electrical business run in the name of M/s. Basant Electricals, headed by Shri Omprakash Gupta are having close business relations with K.S. Oils Group as they supply electrical goods to the K.S. Oils Ltd." This mention of M/s. Basant Electricals headed by Omprakash Gupta was for the purpose of stating the fact that originally the other group against whom the information was there was running the business in the name of M/s. Basant Electricals who is supplying electrical goods to K.S. Oils Ltd. Apart from reference only to this extent, which cannot be said to be an information at all there is not even a word about the petitioner's connection in any way with the other group. Having recorded this the Asstt. Director of IT (Gwalior) included the name of the petitioner in the list of companies and persons for being deemed fit for issuance of warrant of authorization under s. 132(1)of the Act. He thereafter placed the matter before the Director of IT (Inv.) who on the basis of the said information and report ordered for issuance of warrant of authorization for search and seizure against the other group and associate companies as also against the petitioner. 17. On perusal of the entire record, we are of the considered view that it is a case of no information what to say of about its sufficiency or insufficiency. There is absolutely no information of opinion that there is reason to believe that the petitioner has not been, or would not produce such books of account, or other documents as required by such summons or notice useful for the purpose of the Act as required. There is absolutely no information of opinion that there is reason to believe that the petitioner has not been, or would not produce such books of account, or other documents as required by such summons or notice useful for the purpose of the Act as required. The formation of opinion as required under s. 132 if any is in respect of the other group which is undisputedly not connected with the petitioner. The relevant portion from the record regarding formation of such belief about other group reads thus: “Thus, M/s. K.S. Oil Ltd. and their associate companies namely, M/s. K.S. Consupro (P) Ltd., M/s. K.S. Finlease Ltd. M/s. K.S. Real Estate (P) Ltd., M/s. K.S. Infrastructure (P) Ltd., M/s. T.R. Agrictechno (P) Ltd., M/s. T.R. Real Estate (P) Ltd., M/s. SSSM Investment Consultant (P) Ltd. etc. and the promoters family namely, Shri Ramesh Chand Garg, Shri Saurabh Garg, Smt. Sheela Devi Garg, Meeta Garg, Gopal Das Garg, Mohanlal Garg. Govind Chand Garg, Sarla Devi Garg and Shri Sanjay Agrawal and his family members have generated huge incomes and created assets and wealth which are not disclosed to the IT Department. These investments and valuables will never be revealed to the Department if notice under s. 142(1) or summons under s. 131 are issued to them. Therefore, it would be in the fitness of thing, that if the Director of IT (Inv.), Madhya Pradesh & Chhattisgarh, Bhopal deemed it fit, then warrant of authorization under s.132(1) may be issued in respect of following persons/premises as detailed below. 18. In the warrant of search and seizure alleged to have been issued against the petitioner, the petitioner is described as "Basant Electricals. K.S. Real Estate (P) Ltd." In respect of the petitioner of Writ Petn. No. 6775 of 2010, the warrant shows typed names of Suvidha Gupta, Ashish Kumar Gupta (of other groups) and then the name of the petitioner is shown in handwritten letters. 19. From the aforesaid, it appears that merely because originally the members of family of other group were engaged in the electrical business of the larger HUF and that the petitioner in its business of electrical goods is supplying goods to the other group company namely--K.S. Oil's Ltd., the petitioner has been implicated. 19. From the aforesaid, it appears that merely because originally the members of family of other group were engaged in the electrical business of the larger HUF and that the petitioner in its business of electrical goods is supplying goods to the other group company namely--K.S. Oil's Ltd., the petitioner has been implicated. The issuance of authorization for search and seizure warrant in the manner in which the description of the petitioner and its name has been recorded, without there being any information in possession about the petitioner and without recording satisfaction about not producing the relevant books of account and other documents, if summons or notice would be issued to the petitioner is, in our considered view, cannot be sustained. We are of the view that the facts recorded in the file do not constitute any information which can be said to have any rational connection with the petitioner for forming a belief, which is a condition precedent for issuance of warrant of authorization for search and seizure. Thus, in the absence of compliance of the requirement of s. 132 of the Act, the authorization for search and seizure and the consequent search and seizure in respect of the petitioner's properties cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. 20. Before concluding we would like to mention that all the other cases relied on by the learned counsel for the parties do not require specific consideration and mention because, they are quite distinguishable on facts and further because the view we are taking is not contrary to the view taken in the cases cited. 21. Having regard to the aforesaid, the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The authorization made by the first respondent against the petitioner, the search and seizure and the consequential proceedings as may be held against the petitioner, are hereby quashed. The authorities are directed to return the seized property of the petitioner forthwith. No orders as to costs.