JUDGMENT :

HARSH BUNGER, J. 

Petition herein is, inter alia, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the Show Cause Notice dated 11.04.2025 (Annexure P-3) and 16.04.2025 (Annexure P-4) issued by the Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar.

2. At this stage, Mr. Harpreet Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, and Ms. Shreya Bublani, Advocate, appear on behalf of the respondent-State and respondent No.3 (Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar), respectively, in pursuance of the advance copies of paper book having already been supplied to them. The Memorandum of Appearance filed by Ms. Shreya Bublani, Advocate, in Court today is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

3. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the petitioner has concealed the material fact from this Court that she has already availed her remedy before Civil Court by way of filing a Civil Suit.

3.1 Learned counsel for respondent No.3 contends that the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the Show Cause Notices dated 11.04.2025 (Annexure P-3) and 16.04.2025 (Annexure P-4) issued by the Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar, however, no writ petition is maintainable against the Show Cause Notice.

4. Heard.

5. In “Executive Engineer Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh and others”, (1996) 1 SCC 327, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that for entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 against a show-cause notice, it should be shown that the authority had no power or jurisdiction to enter upon the enquiry in question. In all other cases, it is only appropriate that the party should avail of the alternate remedy and show cause against the same before the authority concerned and take up the objection regarding jurisdiction also, then in the event of an adverse decision, it will certainly be open to him to assail the same either in appeal or revision, as the case may be, or in appropriate cases, by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226.

5.1 In “Special Director and Anr. v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and Anr.”, (2004) 3 SCC 440, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the question of maintainability to the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the show-cause notice held that writ petition against the show-cause notice issued by Statutory functionaries for violation of the provisions of relevant Acts (in that case FERA and FEMA), is not maintainable unless the Court is satisfied of the nullity of the show-cause notice for want of jurisdiction of the authority concerned to even investigate the facts. The writ petition challenging the show-cause notice should not be
entertained as a matter of routine. The writ petitioner should rather be directed to respond to the notice. Whether the notice was founded on any legal premises is a jurisdictional issue and can be initially adjudicated by the authority issuing the notice.

5.2 In “Union of India and another v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana”, 2007 AIR SCW 607, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-

"Ordinarily, no writ lies against a charge sheet or show-cause notice. 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 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 may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of any one. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed,