2015 Supreme(J&K) 154
JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT AT SRINAGAR
Bansi Lal Bhat, J.
Sopore Transport Workers - Appellant
Versus
State of J&K and Ors. - Resopndent
OWP No. 321 of 2015 and CMP No. 576 of 2015
Decided On : 13-03-2015
For the Appellant :G.N. Shaheen, Advocate
A mere show cause notice does not give rise to a cause of action unless it has been issued without jurisdiction.
Headnote:
Show Cause Notice - Cooperative Society - The court held that a mere show cause notice does not give rise to a cause of action unless it has been issued without jurisdiction. The show cause notice does not infringe the rights of any party, and thus, a writ petition is not maintainable.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Cooperative Society, sought to quash a show cause notice issued in the context of alleged irregularities in managing the affairs of the Cooperative Society.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the show cause notice did not infringe the rights of any party and was not issued without jurisdiction. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed.
Issues: Validity of the show cause notice and maintainability of the writ petition.
Ratio Decidendi: A mere show cause notice does not give rise to a cause of action unless it has been issued without jurisdiction. Writ jurisdiction should not be exercised by quashing a show cause notice unless it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or wholly illegal.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as there was no merit in the petitioner's claim.
Bansi Lal Bhat, J.:-
1. Petitioner, registered as a Co-operative Society under the provisions of the Jammu & Kashmir Co-operative Societies Act, 1989, (for brevity 'Act') seeks quashment of notice dated 14th February, 2015, issued by respondent No. 4, by virtue whereof the petitioner-society has been called upon to show cause as to why disciplinary action against its management be not initiated, etc. The aforesaid show cause notice appears to have been issued in the context of alleged irregularities in managing the affairs of the Cooperative Society.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner in terms of order dated 27.02.2015 was directed to demonstrate as to how the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the Constitution of the Jammu and Kashmir State is maintainable. This course was adopted as writ petitions impugning a show cause notice are not ordinarily maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in case Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana reported in (2006) 12 SCC 28, submitted that since the impugned order is without jurisdiction, the writ petition is maintainable. It would be advantageous to reproduce relevant paragraphs of the judgment hereunder:
"13. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge-sheet or show-cause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh, Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse, Ulagppa v. Divisional Commr. Mysore, State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma, etc.
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 charge-sheet or show cause notice does not given 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 may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ petition lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show cause notice or charge sheet does not infringe the right of anyone. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance.
15. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show cause notice or charge sheet.
16. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a charge-sheet or show-cause notice if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter."
3. The judgment, though relied upon by the learned counsel, eloquently stipulates that a mere show cause notice does not give rise to a cause of action, because it cannot be termed as an adverse order affecting the rights of any party, unless it has been issued without jurisdiction. A writ petition is maintainable only when some right is infringed. The show cause notice does not infringe rights of any party. Thus, the writ petition is rather squarely covered by the judgment supra cited and relied upon by the petitioner and, therefore, on the face of it, is not maintainable.
4. Next it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned show cause notice has been issued by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, District Baramulla, who has no jurisdiction to issue the same. This argument is bereft of substance inasmuch as the impugned order has been issued by the Deputy Registrar under writt