ORDER
These civil appeals are directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dated May 8, 2002. 2. The principal question which arises for consideration in these civil appeals is whether the Additional Director (Investigation) has the requisite jurisdiction to authorise any officer to effect search and seizure in purported exercise of his power conferred upon him under section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it stood at the relevant time? 3. In these civil appeals we are concerned with the assessment year 1997-98. In the impugned judgment it has been held, inter alia, that the Additional Director (Investigation) did not have the power to issue any authorisation or warrant to the Joint Director as he did not have any statutory authority to issue such authorisation or warrant. 4. Consequently, the High Court declared the Notification dated September 6, 1989, as void to the extent indicated in the judgment. It is this decision of the High Court, basically which is under challenge before us in these civil appeals. The above question has become academic for the simple reason that after the impugned judgment, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi, has issued order under section 132B for release of cash, for release of jewellery and for release of books of account that were seized during the search and seizure operation conducted under section 132(1) of the 1961 Act. In that connection, three orders were issued. They indicate that the matter is final so far as the assessment and tax recovery are concerned. 5. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the above question has become academic and, therefore, we are not required to examine the issues raised in these civil appeals. However, we make it clear that the questions of law raised in these civil appeals are expressly kept open. We express no opinion in that regard. 6. Subject to the above, civil appeals are dismissed as infructuous with no order as to costs. .