The main legal point established in the judgment is that the show-cause notice issued by the LDA was found to be within jurisdiction and not pre-judged, and the petitioner was provided with an opportunity to respond and have a personal hearing before a final decision was made.

JUDGMENT :

1. Arguments in this writ petition were concluded on 08.08.2022 and judgment was reserved to be pronounced by us on 10.08.2022. On 10.08.2022 before the judgment could be pronounced, a mention was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the morning session of the Court that the matter may be re-heard and accordingly an application for further hearing was moved.

2. On the said prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, further arguments were heard on 10.08.2022, on which date the following order was passed:

“This matter was heard on 08.08.2022 and judgment was reserved.

Judgment has been readied, however, before its pronouncement, in the first half of the day, learned counsel for the petitioner has made a request for re-hearing by moving an application.

Accordingly, we have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner today again, however, he remains inconclusive.

List/put up tomorrow i.e.11.08.2022.

The draft judgment dated 10.08.2022 which was to be pronounced today, shall be kept on record.

Interim protection granted earlier shall continue to operate till tomorrow.”

3. The matter was again heard on 11.08.2022. On both these dates i.e. 10.08.2022 and 11.08.2022, learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned counsel representing LDA made their submissions. The judgment was reserved to be pronounced on 17.08.2022.

4. On 10.08.2022, when an application for rehearing of the writ petition was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we not only heard the learned counsel representing the respective parties but also provided that the matter to be listed on 11.08.2022 and further directed that the draft judgment dated 10.08.2022 shall be kept on record. The draft judgment, which was to be pronounced on 10.08.2022, shall form part of this judgment and the same is extracted herein-below:

“1. By filing this petition, jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the validity of a show-cause notice dated 25.07.2022, issued by the Secretary of Lucknow Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as “LDA”) whereby the petitioner has been required to submit its explanation as to why the Concession Agreement entered into between the parties may not be cancelled and further as to why the Performance Security may not be forfeited.

2. Heard Dr. L.P. Misra and Shri Prafulla Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel representing the respondents.

3. Opposing the maintainability of the writ petition, it has been submitted by Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel representing the respondents that petition has been filed challenging only a show-cause notice and since the petitioner has ample opportunity to submits its reply to the said show-cause notice and further that since no final decision in the matter has been taken, as such the petition at this premature stage may not be entertained. It has also been argued that the show-cause notice, which is under challenge herein, has been issued pursuant to a contract entered into between the parties, as such in a contractual matter interference of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not warranted.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, has submitted that it is not that jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India where a show-cause notice challenged is absolutely barred and that under certain circumstances writ petition can be entertained. It has been stated that if the show-cause notice is without jurisdiction or has been issued with premeditation or if only legal issue is to be decided, the writ petition can be entertained. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise and Another vs. Sushil and Company, (2016) 13 SCC 223, Union of India and Another vs. Vicco Laboratories, (2007) 13 SCC 270, Siemens Ltd. vs