A suit challenging the legality and validity of a show cause notice is premature and not maintainable, as a mere show cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action.

1. - The present first appeal under Section 96 of CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30/5/2015 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 1, Alwar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court'), whereby the Trial Court has dismissed the suit of the appellants-plaintiffs, seeking declaration to the effect that the show cause notice dated 27/1/2004 (wrongly mentioned as 27/1/2003) was illegal, without authority of law and that the respondents-defendants had no right to recover the penalty as mentioned therein. The appellants-plaintiffs had also sought permanent injunction for restraining the respondents-defendants from recovering the amount of penalty mentioned in the said show cause notice.

2. The appellants-plaintiffs had filed the suit alleging inter-alia that one mining lease was allotted to the plaintiffs at the Village Jhiri, Tehsil Thanagaji, District Alwar having M.L. No.218/89 (R) for the area of 1000ft. in length and 500ft. in width shown by red colour in the map annexed to the plaint. The said mining lease was initially allotted to Gujarmal Mahajan, father of the plaintiff No.2-Chandra Shekhar on 19/2/1970, and thereafter was allotted to the plaintiff-company for doing business of excavating marble stones. The said mining lease was renewed from time to time by the respondent department. The respondents-defendants on 8/10/2002 had given the notice to the appellants-plaintiffs to the effect that they had encroached upon the area of 54 meter in length and 2 meter in width beyond the sanctioned lease, to which reply was filed by the plaintiffs. However, the defendants had issued the demand notice of Rs. 3,03,771/- on 17/7/2003 against the plaintiff-company by way of penalty. Thereafter the respondents-defendants, without getting any Panchnama drawn in presence of the plaintiffs, again gave notice dated 27/1/2003, received by the plaintiffs on 3/2/2004, calling upon the plaintiffs to show cause as to why the amount of security deposit should not be forfeited and ten time royalty should not be raised for the un-authorized excavation having been carried out by the plaintiffs. The said notice according to the appellants-plaintiffs having been given with malafide intention, was challenged by the appellants by filing the suit.

3. The said suit was resisted by the respondents-defendants denying the allegations made in the plaint, and further contending inter-alia that the very fact that the appellants-plaintiffs had earlier deposited the penalty amount for making encroachment beyond the sanctioned mining lease established that they had made illegal encroachment. However, on 25/12/2003, a Panchanama was drawn by surveyor Narayan Lal in presence of the plaintiff No. 2, and thereafter the show cause notice was issued on 27/1/2004. It was also contended that the plaintiffs could have filed the appeal/revision before the State Government and the suit was not maintainable.

4. It appears that the appellants-plaintiffs had filed the applications seeking temporary injunction which was dismissed by the Trial Court vide order dated 25/11/2004, against which S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2576/2004 was preferred before this Court. In the said appeal, the Court by way of interim order dated 7/1/2005, had with the consent of learned counsels for the parties, directed Shri S.K. Verma, Retired Mining Engineer to conduct the survey and submit the report. Thereafter the said appeal was disposed of by the Court by giving the following directions vide order dated 1/5/2015:-

"1. the trial court is directed to dispose of the underlying suit for permanent injunction laid by the plaintiffs against the show cause notice dated 27.1.2004 within a period of twelve months from the presentation of a certified copy of this order. When any request is made for an adjournment it should be only entertained on an application in writing with reasons set out. The trial court may thereupon adjourn the matter as warranted for maximum of three or f