An additional director lacks standing to challenge a search conducted against the company.

The petitioner, described in the petition as a non-executive director and in the oral order as an Additional Director of M/s Attica Gold Private Limited, challenged search authorisations, searches and seizures, related summonses, and subsequent investigative measures.

He sought, among other reliefs, to quash the authorisations and obtain time to respond to the summonses.

At the preliminary hearing, the respondents submitted that the search was against the company and that any grievance should be raised by the company, not by the petitioner in his personal capacity.

The petitioner sought permission to appear on a later date in response to the summons dated 30 September 2026.

1. Whether the petitioner, as an Additional Director of the company searched, could personally challenge the search and its authorisation under Articles 226 and 227.

2. Whether the petitioner should be permitted additional time to appear in response to the summons dated 30 September 2026.

The petition invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and challenged action under Section 247 of the Income-tax Act; the petitioner also relied on provisions concerning summonses under Section 246.

The Court did not decide the substantive interpretation or validity of those provisions.

It stated that a grievance concerning a search and seizure or its authorisation must be raised by the affected person, and concluded that the petitioner could not do so in his personal capacity where the search was against the company.

The Court considered the petitioner’s challenge to the search authorisation and the respondents’ objection that the search was directed at the company.

It found “considerable force” in the respondents’ submission that the petitioner, as an Additional Director, was not himself the affected person entitled to pursue the challenge.

The Court therefore did not determine the petitioner’s arguments about the requirements of Section 247 or the legality of the searches.

On the separate request for time, the respondents agreed that the petitioner could appear on 14 October 2026 in response to the 30 September summons.

It observed that, in the event of non-attendance, the authorities could take any measure permissible in law.

The Court did not grant a substantive ruling on the validity of the search authorisations or searches.