The court emphasized the principle of audi-alteram-partem and held that show cause notice cannot be subjected to judicial review unless it bristles with want of jurisdiction, arbitrariness, or malafide.

(Prayer:- This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from resuming 4 acres or any portion of land out of 52.34 acres leased out to the petitioner, comprised in Survey Nos.1993, 1994, 1996 and 200/3, Udhagamandalam Town, either pursuant to the show cause notice bearing R.C.No.U1/4781/2002 dated 30.11.2018 or otherwise.)

1. Seeking a direction to forbear the respondents from resuming 4 acres or any portion of land out of 52.34 acres leased out to the petitioner, comprised in Survey Nos.1993, 1994, 1996 and 200/3, Udhagamandalam Town, either pursuant to the show cause notice bearing R.C.No.U1/4781/2002 dated 30.11.2018 or otherwise, the petitioner is before this Court with this writ petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents.

3. The short point involved in this writ petition is, 'whether the show cause notice issued by the Collector of Nilgiris to the Race Club at Ooty calling for their objection why not 4 acres of land out of 52.34 acres leased to them be resumed to tide over the parking crisis in Ooty town' is tainted with malafide or in violation of any law, in force.

4. In the year 1977, the Government of Tamilnadu, sanctioned the lease of 54.74 4/16 acres of land and buildings thereon situated in R.S.Nos.1993,1994,1996 and 2003 of Udhagamandalam taluk and town, Nilgiris District to the Madras Race Club for a period of one year. The annual lease rent for the whole of the extent was Rs.2,737/-. The lease was periodically extended, the rent was also enhanced at intervals. As per the petition averment, the last revision of rent was made in the year 2004 fixing the annual rent of Rs 95,175/-. The last rent paid by the petitioner was in July 2017. (This statement of the petitioner made in his affidavit, is strongly denied by the second respondent in her counter. According to the second respondent, as on 31/12/2018, the writ petitioner is liable to pay the lease arrears amount of Rs.642,93,25,287/-) Beyond these minimum facts, the other disputes between the petitioner and the Government regarding non-renewal of lease and non payment of lease rent are of less relevant for deciding the present writ petition.

5. The purpose of lease was to operate the race club in the said land and not to exploit the lease land for any other purpose. Admittedly, the horse racing is conducted only for three months in a year, (April to June) and for the rest of the year, there is no racing activity in the club, except inter-venue betting. Presently, the petitioner has made huge improvements to the land at their cost, in the form of construction of stables for horses, office buildings, staff dormitories, weighing room, Equine Hospital etc.

6. Now, the grievance of the petitioner herein is that, the second respondent has issued a show cause notice dated 30/11/2018 calling upon the petitioner to submit their objection, to her intention, to create a parking area in 4 acres carving out from the above said land leased to them. According to the petitioner, on receipt of the show cause notice, submitted an interim reply on 12/12/2018, requesting 15 days time to give detail reply. While so, the 3rd and 4th respondents suddenly decended on the property on 17/12/2018 and started demarcating the 4 acres of land, as indicated in the show cause notice. The said act is challenged by the petitioner, in this writ petition.

7. The grounds raised in the writ petition are as follows:

(i) without hearing the petitioner; without giving an opportunity to reply and without taking any decision pursuant to the show-cause notice, the respondents have proceeded to take possession of the 4 acres of land in occupation of the petitioner. This action is arbitrary and illegal.

(ii) The respondent collecting lease rent periodically. It is not open to the respondents to take over a portion of property in occupation after collect