IMPORTANT POINT
Ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so.

BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.

1. The petition was originally filed by the petitioner Brook Bond Lipton India Limited, challenging the show-cause notice for breach of condition dated 6/1995-96 issued by the Deputy Collector, Jamnagar-respondent No. 2 (Annexure- A-1) under Section 79A of the Bombay Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as “the said Code”). It appears that thereafter name of the petitioner was permitted to be substituted as Hindustan Lever Limited, as per the order dated 17.12.2007 passed in Civil Application No. 13866 of 2006. Again the name of the petitioner was permitted to be changed and Hindustan Unilever Limited was substituted as the petitioner, as per the order dated 22.6.2010 passed in Civil Application No. 925 of 2010. Again the name of the petitioner was permitted to be substituted as Jamnagar Properties Private Limited as per the order dated 12.8.2015 passed in Civil Application No. 8836 of 2015. It is pertinent to note that there was no amendment sought in the memo of the petition, despite change of names of the petitioner made in the cause-title from time to time.

2. The short facts are that the original petitioner M/s. Brook Bond Lipton (India) Limited was a public limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. On 19.9.1956 the Government had executed a lease-deed in favour of the said original petitioner (Annexure-B-1 and B- 2) granting the lands in question bearing Survey Nos. 218 paiki, 219, 229/2, 230 and 231 situated at Jamnagar and Survey No. 80 situated at Bedi for industrial purpose on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. It appears that in 1977 the Deputy Collector had issued a notice, calling upon the said petitioner to show cause as to why the lease-deed should not be cancelled as per the Condition No. 8, the said petitioner having not used the land for industrial purpose, however, considering the reply filed by the said petitioner, the Deputy Collector had not proceeded further with the said notice. Thereafter the respondent No. 2 Deputy Collector initiated the proceedings under Section 79A of the Code by issuing the impugned notice dated 25.6.1996 (Annexure-A-1), calling upon the said petitioner to show cause as to why the lease-deed should not be cancelled and the land should not be directed to be vested in Government as the petitioner had not used the land for industrial purpose for more than two years. The said notice was challenged by the said petitioner by way of present petition on the ground that the same was issued without jurisdiction and authority of law.

3. The petition was resisted by the respondent No. 2 by filing reply contending inter-alia that the petition was premature as the respondent No. 2 had only issued the show-cause notice. It was also contended that the Deputy Collector was authorized to take action in case of breach of conditions of the lease-deed and that the respondent No. 2 had not passed any order under Section 79A of the said Code and even otherwise an appeal could be filed under Section 203 of the said Code against the order, if any, passed under Section 79A of the said Code. It was also contended that the petitioner Company was not using the land for the purpose for which it was granted and therefore, the show-cause notice was issued for breach of the conditions No. 4 and 7 contained in the lease-deed. It appears that another affidavit-in-reply was also filed on behalf of the respondent by the Pranth Officer, Jamnagar contending inter-alia that the Circle Inspector, Jamnagar City, Mamlatdar Office had made a panchnama on 17.10.1995 and latest on 21.6.2016 and it was found that the petitioner Company was not carrying on any manufacturing activities and it was closed since 1994.

4. An affidavit-in-rejoinder was sought to be filed on behalf of the petitioner stating inter-alia that the large portion of the lands in question was acquired and possession thereof was taken over by various authorities from time to time and at present the p