ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: To issue a writ, order or direction, or writ, more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring: (i) The action of respondent No.5 in seizing the cash amounting to Rs.15,80,000/- belonging to the petitioner No.1 and further handing it over to the Income Tax Department, more particularly the respondent No.2, without any authority; (ii) The action of respondent No.4 in not releasing the cash amounting Rs.15,80,000/- belonging to the petitioner No.1 despite lapse of one year from the date of seizure i.e., 05.04.2024 and despite submission of detailed explanation, dated 06.05.2024 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, irrational, without jurisdiction, contrary to the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 and Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for seizure and release of cash and other items dated 19.08.2021 issued by the respondent No.5 besides being violative of right of the petitioner under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the respondent No.4 to release the seized amount of Rs.15,80,000/- to the petitioner No.1 and pass such other order or orders. 2 . Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners; learned Standing counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department and learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondent No.5. 3 . S ubmissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners: (a) The petitioner No.1 is a Housewife, having PAN card bearing No.AJGPL5329M. Since the income of petitioner No. 1 is below the taxable limit, petitioner No. 1 would not be liable to be assessed to income tax. The petitioner No.1 scheduled the marriage of her daughter by name Ms.Lakshmi Ramya on 24.04.2024 at Rajamundry. In that regard, for purchasing gold and dress materials for her daughter’s wedding, the petitioner No.1 arranged required funds from various sources amounting to Rs.15,80,000/- and entrusted the same to the petitioner No.2 Mr.Kolli Venkata Satyanarayana, who is her cousin. (b) It is further submitted that the said cash of Rs.15,80,000/- was carried by the petitioner No.2 for the proposed purchase of new gold jewellery, dress materials and return gift items, for the marriage, at Chennai and Kanchi. (b) It is further submitted that the said cash of Rs.15,80,000/- was carried by the petitioner No.2 for the proposed purchase of new gold jewellery, dress materials and return gift items, for the marriage, at Chennai and Kanchi. On 05.04.2024, when the petitioner No.2 reached Chennai Central Railway Station, the Flying squad/Static Surveillance Team (SST) of respondent No.5 intercepted him and seized the said cash of Rs.15,80,000/- from his possession on the ground that the Model Code of Conduct for the General Elections was in force and that carrying cash of Rs. 50,000/- or above without supporting documents was impermissible. The petitioner No.2 tried to provide reason to the respondent No.5 officials that he was unaware of the model code of conduct, which was in force and also informed the authorities that the said amount is an accounted money and the same is carrying for the purpose of purchase of jewellery, dress materials and gift items for the marriage of his niece but the respondent No.5 did not give opportunity. Further, the respondent No.5 handed over the seized cash of Rs.15,80,000/- to the respondent No.2-official on the ground that the petitioner No.2 was in possession of unexplained cash. (c) The procedure adopted by the respondent No.5 officials in seizing the amount of Rs.15,80,000/- from the petitioner No.2 and handing it over to the respondent No.2-official is unfounded and contrary to the Standard Operating Procedure (in short ‘the S.O.P’), dated 19.08.2021 issued by the respondent No.5, wherein a Committee comprising of CEO, Zilla Parishad, Nodal Officer of Expenditure Monitoring in the District Election Office and District Treasury Officer shall suo-moto examine each case of seizure made by the Police /SST/FS and where the Committee finds that no FIR/Complaint has been filed against the seizure or where the seizure is not linked with any candidate or political party or any election campaign, it shall take immediate steps to order release of such cash to such persons from whom the cash is seized after passing a speaking order to that effect. ‘The S.O.P.’ clearly states that in no case, the matter relating to seized cash/valuables shall be kept pending in malkhana/treasury for more than 7 days after the date of poll, unless an FIR/Complaint is filed. (d) It is further submitted that in the present case, no FIR has been lodged against the petitioner No.2. ‘The S.O.P.’ clearly states that in no case, the matter relating to seized cash/valuables shall be kept pending in malkhana/treasury for more than 7 days after the date of poll, unless an FIR/Complaint is filed. (d) It is further submitted that in the present case, no FIR has been lodged against the petitioner No.2. Against the seizure, the Committee formed by the respondent No.5 ought to have undertaken suo-moto examination and passed an order for release of such cash to the petitioners within 07 days from the date of seizure. Instead of doing so, the respondent No.5 officials without application of mind, vitiates the entire process. (e) It is pertinent to mention that nowhere in ‘the S.O.P.’ for seizure and release of cash and other items dated 19.08.2021 issued by the respondent No.5 conferred jurisdiction upon the Income tax officials to take possession of the seized cash amount. It only states that if the released cash amount is more than Rs.10 lakhs, the nodal officer of income tax shall be kept informed before the release is effected and it is only the Committee formed by the respondent No.5 has got the jurisdiction to deal with the seized cash amounts. In spite of clear provisions, the respondent No.5 had erroneously handed over the amounts of petitioners to the respondent No.2-official, which is without jurisdiction. (f) It is further submitted that the manner in which the seized assets are to be dealt with is envisaged in Section 132-B of Income Tax Act, which states that ‘where the person concerned makes an application to the Assessing Officer within thirty days from the end of the month in which the asset was seized, for release of asset and the nature and source of acquisition of any such asset is explained to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer, the amount of any existing liability may be recovered out of such asset and the remaining portion, if any, of the asset may be released to the person from whose custody the assets were seized’. It is further states that the asset shall be released within a period of 120 days under Section 132 or for requisition under Section 132A was executed. It is pertinent to mention that even the clause 3(ii) of Manual of Office Procedure Volume – II, Chapter 3 Assessment Procedure (Search and Seizure) mandates the release of assets within 120 days. It is further states that the asset shall be released within a period of 120 days under Section 132 or for requisition under Section 132A was executed. It is pertinent to mention that even the clause 3(ii) of Manual of Office Procedure Volume – II, Chapter 3 Assessment Procedure (Search and Seizure) mandates the release of assets within 120 days. (g) While so, it has come to the knowledge of petitioner No.1 in the month of March, 2025 that the respondent No.3 passed an order, dated 16.12.2024 under Section 127 of Income Tax Act, wherein the respondent No.3 has centralized the case of the petitioners with respondent No.4. Subsequently, the petitioner No.1 submitted a representation, dated 25.03.2025 to the respondent No.4 narrating the facts and requested the respondent No.4-official to release the seized amount. It is further submitted that, in the present case, the amount was seized on 05.04.2024 and the petitioner No.1 submitted a detailed explanation to the summons under Section 131 on 06.05.2024, wherein the petitioner No.1 had categorically explained the sources for the seized amount of Rs.15,80,000/-. In spite of the same, the respondent authorities are not releasing the said amounts to the petitioner No.1, despite lapse of more than 120 days since the date of seizure. Nonetheless, the respondent-authorities have passed no reasoned order on the explanation submitted by the petitioner No.1, which is an utter abuse of the provisions of the Income Tax Act. Further, the respondents-authorities failed to decide the petitioner No.1 representation within a period of 120 days as mandated by the statute, the respondent authorities are duty bound to release the seized amounts in the light of the law laid down by the High Court of Gujarat in Ashish Jayantilal Sanghavi Vs. Income Tax Officer, (2022) 444 ITR 457 (Gujarat). 4 . Submissions of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4: (a) The respondent Nos.2 to 4 and respondent No.5 filed respective counter affidavits. Income Tax Officer, (2022) 444 ITR 457 (Gujarat). 4 . Submissions of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4: (a) The respondent Nos.2 to 4 and respondent No.5 filed respective counter affidavits. Basing on the averments made in the counter affidavits, learned Standing counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 would submit that during the period of Model Code of Conduct in Tamil Nadu for General Elections to the Hon’ble Lok Sabha, 2024, the Flying Squad Team and Static Surveillance Teams (SST) while monitoring the activities w.r.t. distribution and rotation of cash and other kind to the voters of such constituency, has intercepted the petitioner No.2 at Chennai Central Railway Station on 05.04.2024 at 11.00 a.m., who was in possession of Rs.15.80 lakhs in cash, without any supporting documentary evidences. As per the order issued by the Election Commission of India vide No.76/Instructions/EEPS/2015/Vol-II, dated 29.05.2015, the FST has passed on the information on the same date to the Income Tax Department (i.e. DDIT (Inv.), Unit-4, Chennai) being the total cash intercepted from the petitioner No.2 exceeded Rs.10 lakhs, for further enquiry/investigation by the Income Tax Department. On receipt of the information, an enquiry under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act was initiated on 05.04.2024 against the petitioner No.2 and summons under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act was issued to the petitioner No.2 to appear for enquiry before the Assistant Nodal Officer of the Income Tax Department and a sworn statement has been recorded from the petitioner No.2 on the same day. During the enquiry, it was found that the petitioner No.2 did not have PAN on his name and has not filed I.T. return for any assessment year. Further, during the course of enquiry, as to the source for above cash of Rs.15.80 lakhs intercepted from him by the FST-3, the petitioner No.2 has deposed that the said money belongs to his cousin sister Smt.Boddu Madhavi Lakshmi, which was given to him for marriage related shopping of her daughter. As the petitioner No.2 could not provide any sustentative documentary evidence for the source of cash found with, which exceeds the maximum amount, which is not chargeable to Income Tax. A warrant of requisition under Section 132A has been executed on FST-3 on 05.04.2024 requiring to handover the cash seized from the petitioner No.2. As the petitioner No.2 could not provide any sustentative documentary evidence for the source of cash found with, which exceeds the maximum amount, which is not chargeable to Income Tax. A warrant of requisition under Section 132A has been executed on FST-3 on 05.04.2024 requiring to handover the cash seized from the petitioner No.2. Subsequently, the requisitioned cash of Rs.15.80 lakhs has been deposited into the PD account of Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Chennai on 06.04.2024. Hence, the learned Standing counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 would submit that the petitioners’ contention that respondent No.5 has handed over the above seized cash to respondent No.2 without any authority, is not acceptable. (b) Thereafter, the case of the petitioner No.2 alone has been centralized to the Assessing Officer (ACIT, Central Circle-1, Rajamahendravaram) by passing order under Section 127 of the Act, dated 16.12.2024 by the PCIT, Visakhapatnam, being warrant of requisition under Section 132A has been executed against the petitioner No.2 for further necessary action. (c) The learned Standing counsel would submit that, as the petitioner No.2 has not filed his return of income for any of the assessment years till 05.04.2024, i.e., up to the date of cash seizure, and as a warrant of requisition under Section 132A of the Act has been executed on 05.04.2024, as per the provisions of Clause (i) of Explanation 2 to Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to have information which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in his case. Accordingly, after obtaining necessary permission from the authorities concerned, notices under Section 148, dated 27.03.2025 have been issued for assessment year 2021-2022 to 2024-2025 against the petitioner No.2 calling for return of income for those assessment years. In response to the said notices, the petitioner No.2 has filed his returns of income for the assessment years 2021-2022 to 2024-2025 on 21.05.2025. Taking these returns of income into account, after obtaining necessary approval from the Ld PCIT(C), Visakhapatnam on 05.06.2025, notices under Section 143(2) have been issued against the petitioner No.2 for the said assessment year calling for certain particulars in connection with the above scrutiny assessments and requiring him to furnish the particulars on or before 11.07.2025 which are yet to be received from the petitioner No.2. (d) The learned Standing counsel submits that after verification of the particulars submitted by the petitioner No.2 and examining the same, pending assessments in the case of the petitioner No.2 will be finalized and the time limit for completion of these pending assessments expires on 31.03.2026 as per 5 th Proviso to Section 153(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As regards the assessment for the A.Y.2025-2026 i.e., the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which requisition under Section 132A was made in the case of the petitioner No.2, the petitioner No.2 is yet to file his ITR for AY 2025-2026. After receipt of the same, and after following the due procedure and after providing necessary opportunity to the petitioner No.2, such assessment will be completed within due date. (e) The learned Standing counsel submits that as per Section 132B (1), the assets seized under Section 132 or requisitioned under Section 132A may be dealt with in the prescribed manner. The learned Standing counsel further contends that in view of the instructions, dated 11.12.2006 issued by the Central Board Direct Taxes on the issue of release of cash deposited in P.D accounts subject to conditions referred therein. As Income Tax assessment proceedings for the year 2021-2022 to 2024-2025 is pending against the petitioner No.2 and he is yet to file ITR for the assessment year 2025-2026, the tax liability in his case will be determined only on completion of all the assessments. Accordingly, he would submit that the release of seized cash in the case of petitioner No.2 will be considered on completion of all pending assessments subject to the outcome of the tax liability for those assessment years. (f) Learned Standing counsel for the respondent No.2 to 4 further submits that as per instructions issued in the letter dated 19.08.2021 by the respondent No.5 regarding ‘the S.O.P.’ for seizure and release of cash and other items, it can be seen that time frame of not more than 07 days after the date of poll for release of seized cash fixed by the respondent No.5 vide its ‘S.O.P., dated 19.08.2021 is applicable only to cases where seized cash not handed over to the Income Tax Department. Therefore, there is no force in the contention of the petitioners that the respondent No.4 is not releasing the seized cash which contrary to the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 and ‘the S.O.P.’ dated19.08.2021 issued by the respondent No.5. (g) The learned Standing counsel further contends that the requisition letter, dated 25.03.2025 submitted by the petitioner No.2 on 17.02.2025 before the Assessing Officer requesting for release of seized cash of Rs.15.80 Lakhs deposited in the P.D. Account of the Department has been disposed of on 07.07.2025 rejecting his claim for release of the seized amount and the said letter was served on the petitioner No.2 on 07.07.2025 by mail and a copy served through notice server on the petitioner No.2 on 08.07.2025. (h) The learned Standing counsel further contends that as per the appraisal report, petitioner No.1 in her reply, dated 06.05.2024, had claimed that the cash of Rs.15.80 lakhs intercepted from petitioner No.2 on 05.04.2024 belongs to her which was given to him for marriage related shopping of her daughter Ms.Lakshmi Ramya, at Chennai & Kanchipuram. As per the appraisal report, the details relating to the cash of Rs.15.80 lakhs furnished by the petitioner No.1 have been verified by the DDIT (Inv.), Unit-4, Chennai, which are found to have not been satisfactory. (i) The learned Standing counsel finally submits that after finalizing the pending assessment of the petitioner No.2 after following due procedure, the I.T.R. returns submitted by the petitioner No.2 will be scrutinized within due date. As already the request of the petitioner No.2 to release the seized cash has been rejected by order, dated 07.07.2025, there is no prima facie case and no balance of convenience in favour of the petitioner and sought to dismiss the Writ Petition. 5 . Submissions of learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.5: (i) The learned Senior Counsel would submit that on 05.04.2024 at about 11.00 A.M., in the process of general checking during the general elections to the Lok Sabha, 2024, the checking team, Harbour Assembly Constituency, found cash amounting to Rs.15.80 lakhs with the petitioner No.2 at Central Railway Station, Chennai. The petitioner No.2 failed to produce any document in support of the said amount. The said cash was handed over to Mr. Ravindranath, Assistant Nodal Officer of Income Tax Department. During the course of proceedings initiated under Section 132A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner No.2 failed to produce any document in support of the said amount. The said cash was handed over to Mr. Ravindranath, Assistant Nodal Officer of Income Tax Department. During the course of proceedings initiated under Section 132A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The handing over took place on 05.04.2024 at around 14.30 hours on 05.04.2024. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that the Election Commission of India has issued Standard Operating Procedure vide its letter No.76/Instructions/EEPS/2015/Vol.II, dated 29.05.2015, in terms of the order, dated 30.11.2012 in Election Commissioner Vs. BhagyodayJanparishad & Ors., for seizure by the Flying Squad Team and Static Surveillance Teams (SST), during elections. He would submit that the Election Commission of India has announced General Election to Lok Sabha and Legislative Assemblies of Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Odisha and Sikkim, 2024 on 16.03.2024 and vide its letter No.76/ECI/INST/GEs/EEM/EEPS/2024, dated 16.03.2024 requisitioned the services of DGIT(Inv.)., CBDT, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, under Article 324 of the Constitution to curb the use of black money in elections as per Income Tax Act and directed to take certain steps such as to deploy surveillance and monitoring teams including Income Tax officers at airports, railway stations, hotels, farmhouses, hawala agents, financial brokers, cash couriers, pawn brokers and other suspicious locations to monitor black money flow during elections as per the Income Tax Act and also to coordinate with Flying Squads, Static Surveillance Teams and other Enforcement Agencies during currency of elections. Further, he would submit that if any cash exceeding Rs.10 lakhs is reported to the Income Tax Department; they shall initiate necessary action under Income Tax laws. If it is not possible to seize the same under Income Tax laws, then Income Tax Department shall pass on information to the C.E.O. of the State/UT instantly who shall take steps under IPC, if the cash is suspected to be used for bribing electors. CISF authorities will forward necessary information and extend all cooperation in this regard. (ii) The learned Senior Counsel further contends that as per ‘the S.O.P.’ dated 29.05.2015, if the cash found is more than Rs.50,000/- preliminary proceedings are initiated to ascertain whether the cash is linked to the commission of any electoral offences. If it is found that the cash has no nexus with any such offence, the same is released to its owner. If it is found that the cash has no nexus with any such offence, the same is released to its owner. However, if the amount exceeds Rs.10 lakhs, Income Tax Department is to be informed before release. Accordingly, learned Senior Counsel contends that the action of the checking team in handing it over to the Income Tax Department at their request were strictly in compliance with the guidelines issued by the Election Commission of India and cannot be faulted with and sought to dismiss the Writ Petition against the respondent No.5. 6 . Reply submissions by the learned counsel for the petitioners: (a) The learned counsel for the petitioners, in reply to the arguments advanced by the learned Standing Counsels for the respondent Nos.2 to 5 and 6, would submit that there is no justification in their submissions. The petitioner No.2 explained on 05.04.2024 that the cash belonged is for marriage related expenses of petitioner No.1’s daughter Ms.Lakshmi Ramya, scheduled on 24.04.2024 and supporting documentary evidence was submitted on 06.04.2024 but without considering the same properly, the seized amount of Rs.15.80 lakhs was erroneously detained with the Income Tax Department against the procedure provided under Standard Operative Procedure issued vide order dated 29.05.2015 of the respondent No.5. The petitioners’ explanation on 05.04.2024 corroborated by annexure, dated 06.04.2024 established the cash legitimate source with marriage expenses. The learned counsel would submit that in the absence of an F.I.R. or electoral nexus as required under ‘the S.O.P.,’ the respondents ought to have release the cash by 20.05.2024. The transfer of the seized cash to the respondent No.2 was thus unauthorized and violative of principles of natural justice. The learned counsel further contends that the cash was seized on 05.04.2024 at around 11.00 A.M, was handed over to the Income Tax Department at 02.30 P.M. on 05.04.2024 which proves that the Flying Squad did not retain custody of the cash as contemplated under the Standard Operative Procedure prescribed by the Election Commission. The learned counsel further contends that the cash was seized on 05.04.2024 at around 11.00 A.M, was handed over to the Income Tax Department at 02.30 P.M. on 05.04.2024 which proves that the Flying Squad did not retain custody of the cash as contemplated under the Standard Operative Procedure prescribed by the Election Commission. But, transferred the cash to any authority without lawful sanction as such he would submit that the action of the respondent No.5 in seizing and subsequently transferring a sum of Rs.15.80 lakhs to the respondent No.2 is illegal, arbitrary and violative of ‘the S.O.P.,’ dated 19.08.2021 issued by the Election Commission of India and Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and sought to issue direction to the respondent No.4 to release forthwith the seized cash of Rs.15.80 lakhs to the petitioner No.1 with interest, in the interest of justice. (b) The learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that the petitioner No.1 in her explanation dated 06.05.2024 submitted a detailed documentary evidence, including bank statements and withdrawal records proving the legitimate source of the seized cash of Rs.15.80 lakhs which is meant for marriage expenses of her daughter. The centralization of petitioner No.2’s case to the respondent No.4 under Section 127 on 16.12.2024 does not justify the continued detention of cash in view of the reason that no tax liability upon the petitioner No.1 has been established. Learned counsel submits that the proceedings in question was a outcome of a raid conducted under ‘the S.O.P.’ of the Election Commission of India and the seizure was not a consequence of a raid made by the Income Tax Department under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 nor any order could be passed in appropriated exercise of jurisdiction under section 226 of the Income Tax Act to requisition the money in the absence of a duly constituted proceedings. 7 . Having heard the submissions of the respective counsels and on careful examination of the material available on record, the following issues arise for consideration of this Court as stated under: (i) Whether the respondent No.5 has followed the standard Operative Procedure prescribed vide order dated 29.05.2015 in seizing the cash of Rs.15.80 lakhs from the petitioners or not ? (ii) Whether the action of respondent No.5 is in accordance with the S.O.P. dated 29.05.2015 and S.O.P. dated19.08.2021 or not ? (ii) Whether the action of respondent No.5 is in accordance with the S.O.P. dated 29.05.2015 and S.O.P. dated19.08.2021 or not ? (iii) Whether the seized cash is handed over to the respondent No.4 contrary to the S.O.P. prescribed by the Election Commission of India and the respondent No.4 can retain the seized cash in their P.D. Account handed over by the respondent No.5. 8 . Having considered the admitted facts of the case in our considered view, it is relevant to look into the relevant clauses of ‘the S.O.P.,’ dated 29.05.2015 prescribed by the Election Commission of India as extracted herein under: “9. During checking, if there is any suspicion of commission of crime, the seizure of cash or any item shall be done by the in charge Police Officer of the SST as per provision of CrPC in presence of the Executive Magistrate. The Police Officer in charge of SST shall file complaint/FIR in the Court, having jurisdiction, within 24 hours. 13. After seizure, the seized amount shall be deposited in such manner as directed by the Court and a copy of seizure of cash in excess of Rs.10 lakhs shall be forwarded to the Income Tax authority engaged for the purpose. The DEO shall issue necessary instructions to the treasury units to receive the seized cash beyond office hours and on holiday also, in case it is required. 16. Release of Cash (i) in order to avoid inconvenience to the public and genuine persons and also for redressal of their grievances, if any, a Committee shall be formed comprising three officers of the District namely, (i) CEO, Zilla Parishad/CDO/P.D, DRDA (ii) Nodal Officer of Expenditure Monitoring in the District Election Officer (Convenor) and (iii) District Treasury Officer, The Committee shall suo-moto examine each case of seizure made by the Police or SST or FS and where the Committee finds that no FIR/Complaint has been filed against the seizure or where the seizure is not linked with any candidate or political party or any election campaign etc., as per Standard Operating Procedure, it shall take immediate steps to order release of such cash etc., to such persons from whom the cash was seized after passing a speaking order to that effect. The Committee shall look into all cases and take decision on seizure. The Committee shall look into all cases and take decision on seizure. (ii) The procedure of appeal against seizure should be mentioned in the seizure document and it should also be informed to such persons at the time of seizure of telephone No. of the convenor of the Committee. (iii) All the information pertaining to release of cash, shall be maintained by the Nodal Officer expenditure monitoring in a register, serially date wise with the details regarding amount of Cash intercepted/seized and date of release to the person(s) concerned. (iv) If the release of cash is more than Rs.10 lakhs, the nodal officer of Income Tax shall be kept informed before the release is effected. (v) All cases of seizure of cash etc., effected by FS, SST or Police authorities shall immediately be brought to the notice of the Committee formed in the District and the Committee shall take action as per para (i) mentioned above. In no case, the matter relating to seized cash/seized valuables shall be kept pending in malkhana or treasury for more than 7 (Seven) days after the date of poll, unless any FIR/Complaint is filed. It shall be the responsibility of the Returning Officer to bring all such cases before the appellate Committee and to release the cash/valuables as per order of the appellate Committee.” 9 . Discussion, analysis & Findings:- 10. On a plain reading of Clause 9 of the S.O.P., it states that during checking, if there is any suspicion of commission of crime, any cash or items are seized, it shall be seized by the in charge police officer of the SSTs. he shall file complaint/F.I.R in the court having jurisdiction within 24 hours. Clause 13 states that after seizure, the amount shall be deposited in such manner as directed by the court and a copy of seizure of cash in excess of Rs.10 lakhs shall be forwarded to the Income Tax authority engaged for the purpose. Clause 16 sub clause (i) states the procedure for release of cash. As per this clause, a Committee shall be formed comprising three officers of the District namely., (i) C.E.O., Zilla Parishad/CDO/P.D.DRDA (ii) Nodal Officer of Expenditure Monitoring in the District Election Office (Convenor) (iii) District Treasury Officer. Clause 16 sub clause (i) states the procedure for release of cash. As per this clause, a Committee shall be formed comprising three officers of the District namely., (i) C.E.O., Zilla Parishad/CDO/P.D.DRDA (ii) Nodal Officer of Expenditure Monitoring in the District Election Office (Convenor) (iii) District Treasury Officer. The duty of the Committee is to suo-moto examine each case of seizure made by the police or SST or FS and where the Committee found that no FIR/Complaint has been filed against the seizure or where the seizure is not linked over any candidate or political party or any election campaign etc., as per the Standard Operating Procedure. It shall take immediate steps to order release of cash of such persons from whom it was seized after passing a speaking order to that effect. The mandatory duty casts upon the said Committee is that the Committee shall look into all the cases and take a decision on seizure and Clause 16 sub clause (iv) states that if the release of cash more than Rs.10 lakhs, the nodal officer of Income Tax shall be kept informed before the release effected. 11 . Admittedly, as seen from the facts of the present case, the respondents are utterly failed in following the Standard Operating Procedure, dated 29.05.2015 issued by the Election Commission of India. The Flying squad/Static Surveillance Team (SST) of respondent No.5 has seized a sum of Rs.15.80 lakhs from the petitioner No.2 on 05.04.2024 around 11.00 A.M. at Central Railway Station, Chennai. After seizure of the said amount, it is apparent from the record that no F.I.R. has been registered and not submitted the same before the competent court having jurisdiction not only within 24 hours but till date, as provided under clause 9 of ‘the S.O.P’. As per clause 13, the seized amount has to be deposited in the treasury unit of the concerned district but seized cash was not deposited. It is provided in clause 13 that a copy of seizure of case in excess or above Rs.10 lakhs, shall be forwarded to the Income Tax authority engaged for the purpose. There is no provision made in this clause to handover the seized cash to the Income Tax Department. 12 . It is provided in clause 13 that a copy of seizure of case in excess or above Rs.10 lakhs, shall be forwarded to the Income Tax authority engaged for the purpose. There is no provision made in this clause to handover the seized cash to the Income Tax Department. 12 . Further, the Committee constituted under clause 16, sub clause (i) also did not examine the case of the petitioners in seizing their cash and to ascertain whether the seizure is linked with any candidate or political party in election campaign. As per the mandatory procedure to be followed by the Committee to look into all cases of seizure and to take decision on the same for release of such cash by passing speaking order, no procedure has been followed by the Committee under clause 16. What happened in the present case is that the Flying squad/Static Surveillance Team (SST) of respondent No.5 seized the cash of Rs.15.80 lakhs on 05.04.2024 at 11.00 A.M., from the custody of the petitioner No.2 at Central Railway Station, Chennai. The seized amount is handed over to the Income Tax Department on the same day at around 02.30 P.M. The fact establishes that the Flying squad/Static Surveillance Team (SST) did not deposited the seized cash of the petitioners in the treasury as contemplated under the S.O.P. issued by the Election Commission. The Flying squad/Static Surveillance Team (SST) of respondent No.5 not handed over the seized cash to Income Tax Department without lawful sanction. 13 . If the respondent No.5 followed the procedure provided under the clause 16 of the S.O.P. to place the seizure of cash from the petitioners before the Committee constituted to decide the validity of the seizure, the Committee may examine the validity of the seizure and to examine whether there is any connection to that cash with the election malpractice or not. After examining the documents to be produced before the Committee by the petitioners to satisfy the Committee about the source of that cash, the Committee ought to have passed necessary orders. After examining the documents to be produced before the Committee by the petitioners to satisfy the Committee about the source of that cash, the Committee ought to have passed necessary orders. But, without following the procedure prescribed under clause 16 and without providing any opportunity to the petitioners to prove the source of the cash before the Committee to enable the Committee to pass order for release of the seized cash, immediately seized cash was handed over to to the Income Tax Department which is illegal, contrary, unjust and in violative of principles of natural justice. 14. In an identical circumstance, an amount of Rs. 26,90,000/- was seized by the Flying Squad and subsequently seized cash transferred to the Income Tax Department. The seizure was challenged in a writ petition before the Patna High Court. By its order, dated 16.05.2019, a Division Bench, in the case of M/s.Indian Traders vs. State of Bihar through the District Magistrate-cum- District Election Officer, Muzaffarpur and others held that the seizure itself was without sanction of law and further directed the Income Tax authorities to forthwith take steps for release of the cash in favour of the petitioner therein. The relevant portion of the order reads as under: 18. Ms. Sinha, learned Standing counsel appearing forthe Department, has strenuously tried to justify the action of the Income Tax Department in requisitioning the money from the District Treasury and for initiating a proceeding against the proprietor of the petitioner under the provisions of 'the Act' completely failing to appreciate that the proceeding in question was an outcome of a raid conducted under the guidelines of the Election Commission of India and the seizure was not a consequence of a raid made by the Income Tax authorities under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 nor any order could be passed in purported exercise of jurisdiction under section 226(3) of 'the Act' to requisition the money in absence of a duly constituted proceeding. 19. In a last ditch effort Ms. Sinha appearing for the Income Tax Department by filing a supplementary counter affidavit which enclosed an extract of guidelines justified the requisition of seized cash as being an exercise under the said guidelines. 19. In a last ditch effort Ms. Sinha appearing for the Income Tax Department by filing a supplementary counter affidavit which enclosed an extract of guidelines justified the requisition of seized cash as being an exercise under the said guidelines. Unfortunately the guidelines enclosed at Annexure 'A' to the said affidavit though referred as the guidelines issued by the Election Commission actually is an extract of manual on Election Expenditure Monitoring issued by the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation), Bengalore. 20. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records and we are in no confusion to hold that in view of the conclusion drawn by the three- men Committee constituted under the guidelines of the Election Commission of India, a copy of which is enclosed at Annexure A/9 to the counter affidavit of the Election Commission of India, in accepting the error committed in the seizure of the cash in question and concluding that the seized money had no connection with the Elections which conclusion is accompanied with the recommendation for release of cash by the Income Tax Department, any attempt made by Ms. Sinha to justify either the requisitioning of the cash in question by respondent no.6 vide his letter dated 4.4.2019 at Annexure F/9 or in taking recourse to the provisions of Section 132 of the Income Tax Act or to hold on to the money is absolutely without jurisdiction and without sanction of law because the guidelines nowhere empowers either the Income Tax Department to requisition the cash seized in an exercise conducted under the guidelines of the Election Commission of India nor does guidelines provide that any cash seized in the process is to be deposited with the Income Tax Department. In fact save and except that Clause 16(iv) simply provides that the Nodal Officer of the Income Tax Department is to be kept informed if a release above 10 lacs is to be effected, there is no obligation on the Committee to transfer the cash to the Income Tax Department. 21. In fact save and except that Clause 16(iv) simply provides that the Nodal Officer of the Income Tax Department is to be kept informed if a release above 10 lacs is to be effected, there is no obligation on the Committee to transfer the cash to the Income Tax Department. 21. Even otherwise, in our opinion, the seizure itself was without sanction of law and which is apparent from the fact that no F.I.R. or complaint was instituted as provided under Clause 4 of the Guidelines nor the case was submitted to the court of competent jurisdiction within 24 hours nor the Committee so constituted under the Guidelines took any decision to order seizure of the cash, in absence of any F.I.R./ complaint instituted in terms of Clause 16(i). The illegality is perpetuated because the guidelines do not empower the authorities connected with conduct of the Elections to transfer money deposited in the Treasury to the Income Tax Department on their dictates. 22. Had it been a case where the three men Committee constituted under the guidelines would have opined in favour of the seizure then perhaps the money transfer to the Income Tax Department made sense but such is not the case and neither the Committee has found the seizure justified nor the proceedings in question has been initiated following a seizure under section 132 of 'the Act'. 23. In such view of the matter, the action of the District Treasury Officer, Muzaffarpur in succumbing to the dictates of the Income Tax Department to transfer the seized cash vide Annexure 5 to the writ petition on 11.4.2019 is dehors the guidelines and even the requisition made by respondent no.6 through his letter dated 4.4.2019 addressed to the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur at Annexure F/9 vide order dated 11.4.2019 at Annexure 5 is wholly illegal and without sanction of law. 24. What we find surprising is that even when the Committee constituted has accepted vide Annexure J/9 that the seizure was wrong, the Income Tax Department has proceeded to exercise jurisdiction over the cash seized as if the seizure made by the Flying Squad under the guidelines of the Election Commission of India was in fact in furtherance of exercise under section 132 of the Income Tax Act and the Flying Squad was acting as their agency. We find it rather strange that Ms. We find it rather strange that Ms. Sinha while espousing the cause of the Income Tax Department has completely failed to appreciate that neither the seizure was under section 132 of the Act nor the pre-requisite to an exercise of search and seizure under section 132 of the Act were satisfied nor the requisition satisfies the provisions of Section 226(3) of 'the Act', which is the only provision enabling the Income Tax Department to take over the money apart from the search and seizure prescriptions under section132. 25. That the Committee vide its order dated 13.5.2019 has ordered for release of cash with the recommendation to the Income Tax Department to take consequential action, we hereby direct respondents no. 6 to 8 or the authority found responsible more particularly respondent no.6 under whose requisitional order the money was transferred to the Income Tax Department to forthwith take steps for release of the cash in favour of the proprietor of the petitioner within a maximum period of eight weeks of receipt/ production of a copy of this judgment, failing which the petitioner would be entitled to interest @ 10% on the seized cash payable by the Income Tax Department from the date the seizure took place i.e. 27.3.2019 until the money is refunded by the Income Tax Department.” 15. Against the judgment dated 16.05.2019, in C.W.J.C.No.9941 of 2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in the case stated supra, the Income Tax Department filed a Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.31538/2019 before the Supreme Court of India and the same was dismissed by its order dated 06.12.2019 by the Hon’ble Apex Court. As such, it is clear that the judgment of the Patna High Court was confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court and it attained finality. 16. On careful scrutiny of the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is clear that the Flying squad/Static Surveillance Team (SST) of the respondent No.5 has utterly failed to follow ‘the S.O.P’ dated 19.08.2021 issued by the Election Commission of India i.e., respondent No.5 and the Income Tax Department assumed jurisdiction to adjudicate on the seized cash. The respondents failed to understand that the seizure was not a consequence of a raid made by the Income Tax Department under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act. The respondents failed to understand that the seizure was not a consequence of a raid made by the Income Tax Department under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act. The seizure was made by the Flying squad/Static Surveillance Team (SST) of the respondent No.5 during the General Elections, 2024 as per ‘the S.O.P’ prescribed by them. As such, it is held that the action of the officials of the respondent No.5 in handing over cash of the petitioner No.1, to the Income Tax Department and the action of the Income Tax Department in holding on the cash in their P.D. account is absolutely without jurisdiction and without sanction of law. It is further held that that the officials of the Election Commission of India, has to strictly follow the procedure provided under clause 16. 17 . In that view of the matter, we have no hesitation to hold that the action of the respondent No.5 in seizing the cash of Rs.15.80 lakhs belonging to the petitioner No.1 and further handing it over to the Income Tax Department i.e., the respondent No.2 is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, irrational, without jurisdiction, without any authority and without any sanction of law and contrary to ‘the S.O.P’ for seizure and release of cash and other items dated 19.08.2021 issued by the Election Commission of India and accordingly, the respondents shall release the seized cash of Rs.15.80 lakhs to the petitioner No.1 without reference to the proceedings pending under Section 132A(1) of the Income Tax Act. 18. For the foregoing reasons, this Writ Petition is allowed with following directions: (i) The action of the respondent No.5 in seizing the cash of Rs.15.80 lakhs of the petitioner No.1 and handing it over to the Income Tax Department, is declared as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, irrational, without jurisdiction, without any authority and without any sanction of law. (ii) The respondent Nos.2 to 4 shall take steps to release the seized cash of Rs.15.80 lakhs to the petitioner No.1 within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. (ii) The respondent Nos.2 to 4 shall take steps to release the seized cash of Rs.15.80 lakhs to the petitioner No.1 within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. (iii) If the seized cash is not released to the petitioner No.1 within time stipulated herein above, the Income Tax Department shall pay interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the seized cash from the date of seizure i.e. on 05.04.2024 to till the cash is released/refunded to the petitioner No.1 by the Income Tax Department. 19. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.