Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT BENCH AT JAIPUR
Ganesh Ram Meena, J.
Kamal Pathak - Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondents
S.B Civil Writ Petition No. 14807 of 2020
Decided On : 20-03-2023
Writ - Show-Cause Notice - Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 - Section 39 - The court held that a writ petition against a show-cause notice is generally premature unless it is shown to be wholly without jurisdiction.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged a show-cause notice issued under Section 39 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, claiming it was based on false grounds. The court had previously stayed the notice pending resolution.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had not established a case for interference with the show-cause notice, emphasizing that such notices do not infringe rights unless issued without jurisdiction.
Issues: Whether a writ petition against a show-cause notice is maintainable and if the notice was issued without jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: A writ petition against a mere show-cause notice is generally premature and can only be entertained if the notice is shown to be wholly without jurisdiction.
Result: The writ petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the show-cause notice dated 02.12.2020 issued under Section 39 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (In short 'the Act of 2009') whereby the petitioner has been asked to submit his explanation in regard to allegations mentioned in the notice. This Court vide order dated 16.12.2020, stayed the operation of notice dated 02.12.2020.
2. The respondent-State preferred a D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.778/2021, challenging the interim order dated 16.12.2020, passed by this Court. The said appeal was decided by the Division Bench vide order dated 22.10.2021, with the request to the learned Single Judge to decide the writ petition finally within two weeks from the date of decision. More than one and a half year has passed after the decision of the Division Bench. Today, the petitioner, present in person, seeks adjournment on the ground that his counsel is on strike. The ground mentioned by the petitioner for seeking adjournment is not acceptable, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of "Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal versus Union of India and Anr. (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 132/1998) decided on 17.12.2002.
3. The petitioner submits that the show-cause notice dated 02.12.2020 under Section 39 of the Act of 2009 has been issued to him on false and flimsy ground. In the petition, he has also stated that the explanation to the allegations made against him in the notice under challenge.
4. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General submits that the writ petition against show-cause notice is not maintainable. The petitioner has assailed this show-cause notice under Section 39 of the Act of 2009, whereby he has been asked to submit explanation. In the said notice, the said allegation of the petitioner has also been specified. In the reply to the writ petition, the respondent submits that the petitioner himself has submitted the application with request to provide proper opportunity of hearing and inspection of the record, so that he can defend his case effectively. The said application was submitted by him on 10.12.2020. In response to the application of the petitioner, the Office of Director of Local Bodies vide letter dated 15.12.2020, invited the petitioner on 18.12.2020 for seeking the required documents and personal hearing.
5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of "Union of India and Anr. Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana" AIR 2007 Supreme Court 906 has clearly held that mare show-cause notice and chargesheet does not infringe the writ petition of anyone and therefore, any writ petition against the show-cause notice and charge-sheet is premature. In case of challenge to show-cause notice and charge-sheet, can only be entertained in a case, the same is found to be wholly with jurisdiction. The relevant part of the said judgement in case of Union of India and Anr. Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana (Supra) is quoted as under:-
14. The reason why 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 chargesheet 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. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned m
Writ petitions against show cause notices are only entertained in cases of jurisdictional issues or violations of fundamental rights; otherwise, parties must respond to the notice and raise defenses.
A show-cause notice must provide clear grounds and relevant materials to ensure compliance with natural justice principles.
Adjudication of show-cause notice within a reasonable period to ensure natural justice.
Adjudication of show-cause notices should be done within a reasonable period to ensure transparency in revenue administration and to avoid violation of natural justice.
A writ petition cannot be entertained against a mere show cause notice unless it is issued by an incompetent authority or with mala fide intent, as it does not constitute an adverse order affecting r....
Delay in adjudication of show cause notices is a violation of principles of natural justice.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
