JUDGMENT : Prakash Padia, J. 1. Heard Sri Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. Raj Kumari Devi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 2. Notices were issued to the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 by this Court vide its order dated 11.1.2017. As per the office report dated 10.2.2017 notices were issued to the aforesaid respondents by RPAD fixing on 13.2.2017. Neither acknowledgment nor undelivered cover has been returned back. As such in view of provision chapter VIII Rule XII of Allahabad High Court Rules notices are deemed to be served upon the aforesaid respondents. 3. The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition inter alia with the prayer to issue a mandamus commanding the Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Nahva Sheva Unit, First Floor, Port Users Building (PUB), Nhava Sheva Uran, Raigard, Maharashtra/respondent No. 2 as well as Federal Bank Limited, Ground Floor, Gandhi Nagar, Rampur Road, Moradabad/respondent No. 4 to defreeze the Current Account No. 16250200002619 held at Fedral Bank Limited, Ground Floor, Gandhi Nagar, Rampur Road, Moradabad. 4. The facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that petitioner No. 1 is a proprietorship concern which is engaged in the activities of manufacturing and export of Brass Artwares. The petitioner No. 2 is its proprietor. The firm of the petitioners' was duly registered with the department of commercial taxes and it is also registered under the Central Taxation laws as well as with the Expert Promotion Council for Handicrafts, New Delhi. 5. In the month of August 2014, Federal Bank Limited/respondent No. 4 freezed the Bank account of the petitioners and the petitioners were restrained from operating the bank account maintained by them in the aforesaid Bank. It was informed to the petitioners that the department of Revenue Intelligence in the proceedings initiated under Customs Act, had directed the bank not to allow operation of the Bank account. 6. Summons were issued to the petitioner No. 2 on 14.8.2014 under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 whereby Senior Intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Maharashtra/respondent No. 3 asked the petitioner to submit documents in respect of petitioners' business activities in connection with some inquiry. 6. Summons were issued to the petitioner No. 2 on 14.8.2014 under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 whereby Senior Intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Maharashtra/respondent No. 3 asked the petitioner to submit documents in respect of petitioners' business activities in connection with some inquiry. The petitioners sent an application dated 21.8.2014 to the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence assailing the freezing of bank account with request to permit the petitioners to operate the said bank account. A reply in response to the summons dated 14.8.2014 was also duly submitted by the petitioners through their authorized representative, on 5.9.2014. Without passing any order on the aforesaid reply another summon dated 11.9.2014 was issued under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 requiring personal appearance of the petitioner No. 2 in the Maharashtra office of the respondents. Petitioners duly submitted their reply on 6.11.2014. Petitioner No. 2 appeared before respondent No. 3 on 7.11.2014 along-with all the requisite documents and got her statement recorded. Thereafter another summon was issued on 19.10.2015 under section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 against which petitioners duly submitted their reply on 17.11.2015. The authorized representative of the petitioners also appeared before the respondents and produced all the relevant documents. It is contended that the petitioners have completed all the formalities regarding proceedings pending against them under section 108/110 of the Customs Act and they have produced all the necessary documents as required under the different summons issued to the petitioners. It is contended that till date no orders were passed permitting the petitioners to operate their bank accounts. 7. It is argued by Sri Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel for the petitioners that respondents have no power, authority or jurisdiction to freeze the account pending investigation under sections 108/110 of the Customs Act, 1962. It is contended that till date no orders were passed permitting the petitioners to operate their bank accounts. 7. It is argued by Sri Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel for the petitioners that respondents have no power, authority or jurisdiction to freeze the account pending investigation under sections 108/110 of the Customs Act, 1962. For a ready reference, Sections 108 and 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 are being quoted herein-below: "Section 108 - Power To Summon Persons To Give Evidence And Produce Documents [(1)) Any gazetted officer of customs shall have power to summon any person whose attendance he considers necessary either to give evidence or to produce a document or any other thing in any inquiry which such officer is making under this Act] (2) A summons to produce documents or other things may be for the production of certain specified documents or thing or for the production of all documents or things of a certain description in the possession or under the control of the person summoned. (3) All persons so summoned shall be bound to attend either in person or by an authorized agent, as such officer may direct; and all persons so summoned shall be bound to state the truth upon any subject respecting which they are examined or make statements and produce such documents and other things as may be required: Provided that the exemption under section 132 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), shall be applicable to any requisition for attendance under this section. (4) Every such inquiry as aforesaid shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of section 193 and section 228 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) Section 110 - Seizure of Goods, Documents And Things (1) If the proper officer has reason to believe that any goods are liable to confiscation under this Act, he may seize such goods: Provided that where it is not practicable to seize any such goods, the proper officer may serve on the owner of the goods an order that he shall not remove, part with, or otherwise deal with the goods except with the previous permission of such officer. [(1A) The Central Government may, having regard to the perishable or hazardous nature of any goods, depreciation in the value of the goods with the passage of time, constraints of storage space for the goods or any other relevant considerations, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify the goods or class of goods which shall, as soon as may be after its seizure under sub-section (1), be disposed of by the proper officer in such manner as the Central Government may, from time to time, determine after following the procedure hereinafter specified. (1B) Where any goods, being goods specified under Sub-section (1A), have been seized by a proper officer under sub-section (1), he shall prepare an inventory of such goods containing such details relating to their description, quality, quantity, mark, numbers, country of origin and other particulars as the proper officer may consider relevant to the identity of the goods in any proceeding under this Act and shall make an application to a Magistrate for the purpose of- (a) certifying the correctness of the inventory so prepared; or (b) taking, in the presence of the Magistrate, photographs of such goods, and certifying such photographs as true; or (c) allowing to draw representative samples of such goods, in the presence of the Magistrate, and certifying the correctness of any list of samples so drawn. (1C) Where an application is made under sub-section (1B), the Magistrate shall, as soon as may be, allow the application.] (2) Where any goods are seized under sub-section (1) and no notice in respect thereof is given under clause (a) of section 124 within six months of the seizure of the goods, the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized: Provided that the aforesaid period of six months may, on sufficient cause being shown, be extended by the [Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs] for a period not exceeding six months. (3) The proper officer may seize any documents or things which, in his opinion, will be useful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under this Act. (4) The person from whose custody any documents are seized under sub-section (3) shall be entitled to make copies thereof or take extract therefrom in the presence of an officer of customs." 8. (3) The proper officer may seize any documents or things which, in his opinion, will be useful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under this Act. (4) The person from whose custody any documents are seized under sub-section (3) shall be entitled to make copies thereof or take extract therefrom in the presence of an officer of customs." 8. It is contended that except the issuance of summons to the petitioners a reply to which were duly submitted by the petitioners, no other show-cause notice has been issued to the petitioners under any provisions of the Customs Act. It is further contended that no notice under section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 has been issued to the petitioners, as such, assuming without admitting that the notices issued under section 110(2) was valid notice, it automatically stands lapsed after a period of six months, immediately in the first quarter of July 2015 itself and as such there is no justification to continue with the seizure. In this background of the matter it is argued by Sri Kshitij Shailendra that impugned action is violation of principles of natural justice. It is further argued that on account of unwarranted and illegal action of the respondents the entire business operations of the petitioners have come to stand-still and as such there is a violation of Article 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon a following judgments: (i) Raghuram Grah Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex. & Service Tax, 2005 (186) ELT 50 (All) (DB). (ii) Veritas Exports v. Union of India, 2005 (184) ELT 341 (Bom) (DB). (iii) Am Overseas v. Union of India, 2006 (194)ELT 267 (Guj) (DB); (iv) Multitek Engineer v. Union of India, 2012 (05) JEE(E) 1458. (v) Judgment and order dated 7.5.2015 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17424 of 2015 (M/s. M.Z. Handicraft and another v. Union of India and 4 others). 9. In the short counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is stated that: (i) the office of the respondent No. 2 is investigating a case of fraudulent drawback claim by a group of firms by exporting cardboard waste in place of 'Brass Artware' declared in the shipping bills filed for such exports. (ii) The exporters adopted an ingenious modus operandi to defraud the Government. (ii) The exporters adopted an ingenious modus operandi to defraud the Government. They carted into the Container Freight Station (CFS, in short) a consignment containing genuine brassware which was presented to the customs officers for examination. However, after verification by Customs and after obtaining the mandatory permission to export (Let Export Order or 'LEO'), they filed fresh shipping Bills and on such Shipping Bills carted into the CFS fresh consignments of similar looking cartons that contained waste such as shredded paper/cardboard. Then, while stuffing the container for shipping bill where LEO had been obtained, instead of stuffing the cargo which had been examined by the customs staff, the subsequently carted consignment containing waste was stuffed and exported. This cycle was repeated numerous times and, in the process, waste was exported while drawback was claimed on the value of the non-existent Brass Artware declared in the respective shipping bills. (iii) During investigation, 13 containers stuffed with goods covered under 47 shipping bills were intercepted at various points (CFS, Docks and also at the port of destination) and 1281 loose packages, pertaining to 17 shipping bills, lying in the Export Shed of CFS Forbes & Co. Ltd. were detained. These goods were examined and seized by officers of DRI during the period 4.6.2014 to 28.6.2014 as there was reason to believe that they were liable to confiscation under provisions of the Custom Act, 1962. Based on their contents, the packages were broadly of three different types: (1) Those containing only waste paper/cardboard shredding and pieces of what appeared to be scrap metal foil (2) Those containing waste paper/cardboard shredding and metal plates and (3) Those that did contain some pieces of the declared brass items, however in very low quantity in comparison to the declared quantity. Total drawback claimed under the said 64 shipping bills is about Rs. 1.71 crore and the total declared (FOB) value is about Rs. 14.27 crores. A total number of 16 firms were shown as exporter (as per the shipping bills) in the said seized consignments, however not a single firm came forward to claim the goods under seizure. Of the said total number of subject 16 firms, Proprietors of only four firms appeared before DRI in response to summonses issued to them and gave their statements. Of the said total number of subject 16 firms, Proprietors of only four firms appeared before DRI in response to summonses issued to them and gave their statements. However, the said proprietors, in statement given by them claimed ignorance about nature of the exports carried out in the name of their respective firms and named Mohd. Asad Ali as the person responsible for the exports. A show-cause notice proposing, inter alia, confiscation of goods, denial of drawback and penalty on those concerned was issued on 1.12.2014. (iv) A total No. of 29 suspect firms are under investigation and besides the drawback claimed in case of consignments seized by DRI, the said firms have, collectively claimed drawback amount of around Rs. 13 crores in respect of consignments already exported by them in the past of a total declared FOB value of about Rs. 120 crores. (v) The petitioner No. 1, is one of the 29 firms under investigation, and freight forwarding work of the petitioner in respect of export from Nhava Sheva Port was handled by Pandurang Bajirao Dere, also known as Adinath Dere, proprietor of M/s. Emmar Logistics, who is one of the two prime suspects in the case (the other being Mohd. Asad Ali. (vi) That Pandurang Bajirao Dere, in his statement, recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, admitted, inter alia, that he had handled freight forwarding work of 15 firms, including M/s. King Star Handicraft, the Petitioner No. 1; that he did not know the proprietors of any of the said 15 firms; that the said 15 firms were operated by a trio of Moradabad based persons, namely Nasir Khan, Bobby Khan and Rahat Khan; that the modus operandi adopted by the said trio was 'Adjustment Method', wherein the quantity of goods declared in the shipping bills would be much higher, up to 5 to 6 times than what was packed in the cartons; there would be no problem with their Customs clearance as the packing would be done in such a manner that it would not be detected easily; that he (Dere) was promised 22% of the drawback sanctioned to the party and that the operator of M/s. King Star Handicraft, the Petitioner No. 1 was Bobby Khan. (vii) The said Pandurang Bajirao Dere and three other persons involved in the case were arrested by DRI on 21.8.2014) (Mohd Asad Ali) and 22.8.2014 (Pandurang Bajirao Dere and others) and are presently released on bail. (viii) Petitioner No. 1 had exported goods declared as 'brass art ware' under three shipping bills filed during May 2014 involving a total declared value of Rs. 51,64,816/- and drawback claim of Rs. 6,19,779/-. The remittance received in bank accounts of all of the 29 firms under investigation is suspected to be arranged by a syndicate and not relatable to the exports done by the firms. (ix) As the petitioner firm appeared to be one of the firms operated by a syndicate engaged in such fraudulent exports, further sanction of drawback to petitioner was put on hold vide letter dated 5.6.2014 issued to drawback section, JNCH. The petitioner's impugned bank account No. 16250200002619 with Fedral Bank Ltd., Moradabad Branch shows credit of Rs. 12,94,971/- which relates to receipt of foreign inward remittance and is suspected to be arranged by a syndicate and not relatable to the exports done by the firm. Hence, a letter dated 5.6.2014 was also issued to Fedral Bank Ltd., Moradabad Branch requesting, inter alia, not to allow withdrawal from the current account of the petitioner No. 1. 10. It is stated in the prayer clause of aforesaid short counter-affidavit that "however, the department has no objection to the petitioner operating their account for transactions other than those related to the exports under investigation." 11. In the rejoinder-affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners, the facts as narrated in the short counter-affidavit were denied and again it is stated that procedure as prescribed under sections 108/110 of the Customs Act 1962 was not complied with and as such the petitioners are entitled for the relief's as claimed in the present writ petition. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 13. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. 14. From perusal of the facts as sated above, it is clear that as many as three summons were issued by the respondents under sections 108/110 of the Customs Act 1962. No proceedings whatsoever has been initiated at any point of time as provided under Sub-section 2 of Section 110 of the Customs Act 1962. 14. From perusal of the facts as sated above, it is clear that as many as three summons were issued by the respondents under sections 108/110 of the Customs Act 1962. No proceedings whatsoever has been initiated at any point of time as provided under Sub-section 2 of Section 110 of the Customs Act 1962. It is provided Sub-section 2 of Section 110 of the Customs Act 1962 that where any goods are seized under sub-section (2) and no notice in respect thereof is given under clause (a) of Section 124 within six months of the seizure of the goods, the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized. 15. It is clear from perusal of the record that no proceeding has been initiated by the respondents by issuing notice as provided under clause (a) of Section 124 of the Customs Act 1962 within six months. 16. In the case of Raghuram Grah Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) it was held by Division Bench of this Court that "As we find no provision nor any authority under which the bank account can be freezed pending investigation we are left with no option but to quash the order dated 16th January, 2004 (Annexure 17 to the writ petition) and direct the Respondent No. 1 to forthwith release Current Account Nos. 28430 and DRCs Account Nos. 7538 to 7541 with the Union Bank of India, Banda Branch, Banda. As the action of the respondent in freezing the bank accounts have been set aside the petitioner shall be entitled to operate them." 17. In the case of Veritas Exports (Supra), a Division Bench of Bombay High Court was pleased to hold in paragraph 6 that it is necessary for the Customs authority to take appropriate steps for confiscation of goods within a period of 6 months from the date of seizure in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 124(c) of the said Act and in case no such steps are taken then to proceed in accordance with Sub-section 2 of Section 110 of the said Act. 18. Paragraph Nos. 6, 7 and 8 of the aforesaid judgment is produced below: "6. 18. Paragraph Nos. 6, 7 and 8 of the aforesaid judgment is produced below: "6. Obviously once the goods are seized in exercise of powers under Section 110(1) of the said Act, it is necessary for the Customs authority to take appropriate steps for confiscation of goods within a period of 6 months from the date of seizure in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 124(c) of the said Act and in case no such steps are taken then to proceed in accordance with Sub-section 2 of Section 110 of the said Act. Undoubtedly, proviso to Sub-section 2 of Section 110 provides that the period of months may be extended by the Commissioner of Customs, on sufficient cause being shown, for a period not exceeding six months. We are fully aware that in a given case where the delay is occurred on account of acts on the part of owners of the goods then such period can even be excluded from the period of six months as was held by the Apex Court in the case of Poolpandi v. Superintendent, Central Excise. Nevertheless, the authorities under the said Act have no power to continue to keep the goods seized under Section 110(1) after the expiry of period of 6 months unless they follow the procedure prescribed under Section 124 and/or 110(2) of the said Act, as the facts and the circumstances of the case may warrant. The provisions of law contained in Section 110 read with Section 124 are to be followed by the authorities and the goods cannot be detained without complying the said provisions of law. The law in this regard is well-settled by the decision of the Apex Court in Harbans Lal v. Collector of Central Excise & Customs read with I.J. Rao, Asstt. Collector of Customs and others v. Bibhuti Bhushan Bagh and another and The Asstt Collector of Customs v. Charan Das Malhotra as well as Lokenath Tolaram Etc v. B.N Rangwani and others. 7. In the case in hand, though the respondents have filed two affidavits in the course of the hearing of the matter, the same nowhere discloses any action having been taken by the respondents in accordance with the provisions of law contained in Section 124 or 110(2) in relation to the goods in question i.e. the said bank accounts which have been frozen by the respondents. Apart from giving a lame excuse that the investigation is not yet complete and the freezing has been done as a precautionary measure, no justification has been given for not taking steps in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 110(2) and the proviso thereto, in case the petitioners have not been able to take appropriate steps in accordance with Section 124. It is to be noted that the accounts have remained frozen atleast from 1998 onwards and till this date there has been no action on the part of the respondents in accordance with the provisions of law. There is also no explanation for such inaction on the part of the respondents. Inspite of repeated query being made, the Advocate for the respondents, apart from submitting that the said amount is seized for other investigation either under the Income Tax Act or some other Act and that too without making good by producing documentary evidence in that regard, no explanation is forthcoming to justify continuation of the accounts in frozen condition. In the circumstances, therefore, we are left with no alternative than to allow the petition and to order the release of the accounts in accordance with the prayer Clause-b(i) of the petition." 8. The petition therefore, succeeds and the same is allowed in terms of prayer Clause-b(i) and the rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs." 19. A Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Am Overseas (Supra) had an occasion to examine this controversy. The Division Bench held that the provisions of Section 110 of the Act cannot restrict the petitioner from operating the Bank account. The relevant portion of the judgment is quoted below: "6. Coming to Section 110(3) of the Act, it permits the authority to exercise power on seizure of any document or thing which, in the opinion of the authority, will be useful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under the Act. Emphasizing the use of the term 'things' in the provision, it was submitted that when the same is read with definition of 'goods' under Section 2(22) of the Act, as also the definition of the term 'things' from the Black's Law Dictionary, it would also take within its sweep 'currency', and in the circumstances, the action of the respondent authorities was required to be upheld. The said submission, though attractive at first blush, does not hold ground when the same is examined in light of the scheme of the Act. One cannot lose sight of the fact that the provision is part and parcel of a statute which deals with import and export of goods. In other words, permitting such transactions of goods in accordance with law. The term 'currency' is used in the definition of the term 'goods' in the context of either importing the currency or exporting the currency through legal channels or illegally. In violation of the requisite law in relation to such transactions of currencies, the authority would be empowered to take appropriate action under the Act. In the present case, it is not the case of respondent authorities that the petitioner is either dealing in currency or is charged with illegally transacting in currency by way of import or export. Therefore, even this provision cannot support the action of respondent authorities. 7. Though Mr. Oza has addressed the Court in relation to various facts narrated in the affidavit in reply, it is not necessary to deal with the same at this stage, for the simple reason that the investigation which is in progress should not be affected by any observation or finding which the Court may record in relation to the facts and evidence which is in the stage of being ascertained, collated and brought on record. Therefore, without entering into any discussion on merits of the facts and evidence, suffice it to state that the averments made in the affidavit in reply do not carry the case of revenue any further." 20. In the case of Multitek Engineers (Supra) a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court was pleased to hold that, from a bare perusal of the provisions contained under section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 shows that the statutory provision does not expressly enable an Investigating Officer to attach the Bank account. 21. In the case of M/s. M.Z. Handicraft (Supra) it was held by Division Bench of this Court that "power under section 110 of the Customs Act 1962 could not have been exercised for passing an order that the petitioners should not be permitted to make any withdrawal from the account. 21. In the case of M/s. M.Z. Handicraft (Supra) it was held by Division Bench of this Court that "power under section 110 of the Customs Act 1962 could not have been exercised for passing an order that the petitioners should not be permitted to make any withdrawal from the account. Relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced below: "The submission of learned Senior Counsel for the respondents that even if the account is permitted to be operated by the petitioners, a direction should be issued to provide the security for the amount in view of the judgements relied upon cannot also be accepted in view of the provisions of Section 110A of the Act. Section 110A of the Act provides that any goods, documents or things seized under Section 110 may pending order of the Adjudicating Authority be released to the owner on taking a bond from him in the proper form with such security and conditions as the Adjudicating Authority may require. Thus the precondition stipulated under Section 110A is that goods, documents or things must have been seized under section 110 of the Act. We have already held that the power under section 110 of the Act could not have been exercised for passing an order that the petitioners should not be permitted to make any Withdrawal from the account. In such circumstances, the respondents cannot insist that the petitioners should furnish adequate security bond. Thus for all the reasons stated above, the impugned order dated 5 June 2014 passed by Senior Intelligence in the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence cannot be sustained and is, accordingly, set aside. The respondent shall forthwith permit the petitioner to operate the Account No. 019005500238. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicate above." 22. From perusal of the provisions contained under sub-section (2) of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, it is clear that the customs authority must have issued a show-cause notice under section 124 of the Customs Act, within a period of 6 months from the date of order of the seizure and in case no such notice is issued within 6 months, the said period of 6 months may be extended on sufficient cause being shown by the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs as provided in proviso to sub-section (2) of section 110 of the Customs Act. Thus, in no case the seizure of goods and documents may continue for a period of more than 1 year, if no show-cause notice as contemplated under section 124 of the Customs Act is issued. In the present case, it is clear that the accounts were freeze in August 2014. The writ petition was filed in 2017. In the short counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 on 10.2.2017 it is not at all stated that any show-cause notice as contemplated under clause (a) of section 124 of the Customs Act has been issued. It is only alleged in the counter-affidavit that the investigation with regard to the fraudulent drawback is being going on. Even no justification has been given for not taking steps in accordance with the provisions contained in Sub-section (2) of Section 110 and proviso thereto, as such, it is obligatory on part of the respondent customs authority to defreeze the bank account of the petitioner but the respondents customs authority have not yet defreeze the bank account of the petitioner. 23. In view of the facts stated above, it is clear that the bank account cannot be remained freeze during investigation for the period as contemplated under Sub-section (2) of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. The respondents have failed to pass appropriate order for defreeze of the bank account of the petitioner, therefore, a mandamus is issued directing the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 to defreeze the bank account of the petitioner being Account No. 16250200002619 at Federal Bank Ltd., Ground Floor, Gandhi Nagar, Rampur Road, Moradabad. 24. In the facts and circumstances of the case a mandamus is issued to the respondents to permit the petitioners forthwith to operate his current account No. 16250200002619 held at Fedral Bank Limited, Ground Floor, Gandhi Nagar, Rampur Road, Moradabad. 25. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.