Aggrieved by showcause notice dated 19.11.2014, the petitioner-ACC Ltd. has approached this Court. Initially, the said notice was not under challenge however, the petitioner subsequently filed I. A. No. 3627/2015 and impugned notice dated 19.11.2014.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner referring to reply dated 10.12.2014 and the order passed by the Inspector of Factories, Dhanbad, submits that the petitioner by virtue of the exclusion clause in Section 2(d) of the Building and Other Construction Workers' Welfare Cess (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 is not liable to pay cess under the Act. The learned counsel relied on the order passed by the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in W. P. No. 10209/2012 and order dated 04.10.2010 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sterlite Energy Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa & Ors. [S.L.P (Civil) No. 27411/2010)] to fortify his contention that notice dated 19.11.2014 issued by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Dhanbad, is without jurisdiction and thus, liable to be quashed.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent-State of Jharkhand raises a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition. Referring to the stand taken in the counter affidavit, it has been submitted that the petitioner's Unit has yet to be inspected by respondent no.2.

4. The petitioner, a Public Limited Company has its registered office at Mumbai and it owns a factory at Sindri, which is commonly known as Sindri Cement Works. The petitioner for erecting the factory applied for approval of map under Section 6 of the Factories Act, 1948. The Inspector of the factories inspected the premises and submitted a report and, finally, the Chief Inspector of Factories granted approval. The petitioner asserts that production in its factory at Sindri commenced in the year 1997 and the license of the factory has been renewed every year by the competent authority.

5. Ordinarily, challenge to a showcause notice is not entertained in the writ petition unless, the showcause notice is wholly without jurisdiction or patently illegal. The respondent no. 2 is the person authorised under the Act to issue notice for furnishing requisite informations, and thus, notice dated 19.11.2014 issued by respondent no. 2 cannot be said to be illegal. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the Building and Other Construction Workers' Welfare Cess (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 is not applicable to the petitioner's unit and thus, respondent no. 2 has no jurisdiction to issue notice dated 19.11.2014, is a question of fact which at the threshold cannot be decided. In “Union of India and Another Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana”, reported in (2006) 12 SCC 28, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:

13. “It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a chargesheet or showcause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh, Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse, Ulagappa v. Divisional Commr., Mysore, State of U.P. v. Brahm Dutt Sharma, etc.

14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere showcause notice or chargesheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere chargesheet or showcause 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 showcause 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 showcause notice or chargesheet does not infringe the right of anyone. It is only when a final order imposing some punish