Hon'ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan

The practice of entertaining Writ Petitions questioning the legality of a show- cause notice, stalling the proposed enquiry and retarding the investigative process to ascertain facts with the participation and in the presence of the parties, must be deprecated. Unless the High Court is satisfied that the show- cause notice is non-est Writ Petitions should not be entertained for the mere asking, and as a matter of routine, and the petitioner should, invariably, be directed to respond to the show-cause notice and take all stands, highlighted in the Writ Petition, therein. (Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse1; Divisional Forest Officer v. M. Ramalinga Reddy2; Saravani Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai3; M/s Vasavi Business Combines v. Commissioner of Customs4; M/s Jasper Industries Pvt. Ltd v. Commercial (CT), (Audit), Hyderabad) A show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action as it is not an adverse order which affects the rights of a party. It is quite possible that, after considering the reply to the show-cause notice, the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the allegations are not established.

2. A show-cause notice does not infringe the rights of anyone. It is only when a final order, adversely affecting him, is passed that the said person can be said to have any grievance. (Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana6; Saravani Impex Pvt. Ltd.3).

3. When a show-cause notice is issued under a statutory provision calling upon a person to show-cause he must, ordinarily, place his case before the authority by showing cause. The purpose of issuing a show-cause notice is to afford an opportunity of hearing to the person concerned, and Courts should be reluctant to interfere at that stage as it would be premature. (State of U.P. v Shri Brahma Datta Sarma7; M/s Vasavi Business Combines4; M/s Jasper Industries Pvt. Ltd5). The appropriate course for the recipient is to reply to the show-cause notice enabling the authorities to record their findings and then, if necessary, the matter can be carried in appeal to the Tribunal and, thereafter, to this Court. (Union of India v Bajaj Tempo Limited8; M/s Vasavi Business Combines4; M/s Jasper Industries Pvt. Ltd5).

4. Interference would be justified only when the notice is ex-facie a 'nullity' or non-est in the eye of the law for absolute want of jurisdiction of the authority to even investigate into the facts, or totally "without jurisdiction" in the traditional sense of that expression i.e., even the commencement or initiation of the proceedings on the face of it, and without anything more, is totally unauthorised. In all other cases, it is only appropriate that the party shows cause before the authority concerned and takes up the objection regarding jurisdiction therein. (Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh9; Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse1; M. Ramalinga Reddy2; Saravani Impex Pvt. Ltd3). Whether the show cause notice was founded on any legal premise is a jurisdictional issue which can even be urged by the recipient in his reply to the notice, and such an issue can also be initially adjudicated by the authority, issuing the very notice, before the aggrieved can approach the Court. (Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse1; M. Ramalinga Reddy2; Saravani Impex Pvt. Ltd3; M/s Vasavi Business Combines4; M/s Jasper Industries Pvt. Ltd5).

5. Abstinence from interference at the stage of issuance of the show-cause notice, in order to relegate parties to the proceedings before the authorities concerned, is the normal rule. However the said rule is not without exception. Where a show-cause notice is issued either without jurisdiction, or is an abuse of process of law, the Writ Court would not hesitate to interfere even at the stage of issuance of the show-cause notice. (Union of India v. VICCO Laboratories10). The High Court has the power to issue, in