The main legal point established in the judgment is that a writ petition against a show cause notice is not tenable unless the authority has no power or jurisdiction to enter upon the enquiry.

Sanjay Yadav, J.

1. Show cause notice under Section 307(2) M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, issued by Respondent No. 2, is the cause, aggrieved whereof the Petitioner has filed present writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking its quashment.

2. Besides, the Petitioner also seeks a direction to Respondents No. 3 to 6 to get the construction, which has led to the issuance of impugned notice, legalised by compounding, in alternate it is sought that, Respondents No. 3 to 6 to return all the money that they have taken by way of rent and the construction cost together with maintenance charge at the rate of 12% interest of the fourth floor.

3. Those second set of reliefs were, however, given up by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner at the very outset and the challenge is confined, only the show cause notice under Section 307(2) of the Act of 1956.

4. The facts relevant briefly are that, the Petitioner is a tenant in occupation of a building situated at plot No. 21/2 North Civil Lines, Jabalpur owned by Respondents No. 3 to 6. The building consists of a basement ground, first, second and third floors constituting a total carpet area of 24,600 sq. ft. hospital and styled as Marble City Hospital and Research Centre is being functional therein.

5. It is contended by the Petitioner that Respondent No. 6, one of the lessor, was a director of the Petitioner company, in the year 1999, constructed a structure on fourth floor and the Petitioner company was allowed to use the same for getting patients on that floor. It is alleged the money used for construction of floor and other amenities was from the company's fund and an adjustment from monthly rent was accorded to the company. Certain facts and figures are been adverted to in regard to expenditure and their adjustment, but since the validity of notice under Section 307(2) of the Act of 1956 is only questioned, therefore, the same are not gone into. It is the construction of this fourth floor and the use of basement and the open space contrary to the sanction, which prompted Respondent Corporation and its functionaries to issue impugned show cause notice calling upon the Petitioner to justify the use of the premises other than the purpose for which it was sanctioned and unauthorised construction at fourth floor.

6. The impugned show cause notice was issued on 14.8.2008. The Petitioner responded the same by filing its reply/explanation/objection on 19.8.2008 and on the same day files the present writ petition, wherein on 22.8.2008 a status quo was ordered.

7. The Petitioner challenges the notice on grounds, viz.:

(i) that the impugned notice is issued by the building officer who is not an authority competent under Section 307, whereunder only Commissioner can initiate such action.

(ii) that the issuance of notice is at the behest of the lessor, and therefore, infested with conclusion and is for collateral purpose.

8. Elaborating his submissions learned Counsel for the Petitioner laid emphasise on the provisions of Section 307 of the Act of 1956, whereunder it is the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, who is authorised to issue notice and take action under Section 307 of the Act of 1956. Secondly, it is contended that the action under Section 307 of the Act of 1956 has been initiated for collateral purpose, and in collusion with Respondents No. 3 to 6, because of the MJC No. 21/2008 filed under Section 307 of Act of 1956, and pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, whereunder relief against the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 has been sought for demolition of the construction in question. It is urged that, the Respondents have joined hands and a device has been carved out qua notice under Section 307(2) for an illegal gain. It is accordingly, urged that, the impugned notice thus is liable to be quashed. The Petitioner placed reliance on judgment in AIR 1951 SC 16, AIR 1957 SC 529, AIR 1959 SC 725, AIR 1961 SC 372, AIR 1971 SC 1228, to b