ORDER

1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been directed against a notice dated 17.10.2023 issued by Collector, Sheopur, whereby invoking the provisions under section 50 of the MPLRC of suo-moto revision, the present petitioner has been called upon to make submissions with regard to the illegal mutation of his name done on the land bearing survey Nos.884/11 and 884/18 admeasuring 2.090 and 1.045 hectare respectively on the basis of some sale-deed in the proceedings before Tehsildar No.50/2012-13/A-6 dated 20.5.2013.

2. The said notice issued by invoking the provisions of section 50 of the MPLRC had been assailed on the ground that the very notice has been issued with an ill motive under some political pressure of the ruling party and has been issued without following the due procedure of law. It was submitted that in wake of the aforesaid notice the respondents are trying to forcibly evict/disposses the petitioner from the land in question and are bent upon to delete the entries in the revenue records of the name of the petitioner, which has rightly been mutated in the revenue records. It was further submitted that the said issuance of notice would amount to deprivation of the rights as provided under Article 300A of the Constitution of India when it is a settled principles of law that no person can be deprived of the property by authority of law. Thus, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the show-cause notice and the proceedings there from be quashed.

4. On the other hand, Shri Kushwah, appearing on advance copy submits that the present petition against the show-cause notice is not maintainable as it is a settled principle of law that against the show-cause notice the remedy of the person would be to address the said notice and, thereupon, if any adverse order is passed against him, he can challenge the same, but here since no adverse order till date has been passed against the present petitioner, therefore, the petitioner has no right to maintain to the present petition. Accordingly, it was prayed that the said petition be dismissed.

Heard the counsels for the parties and perused the record.

5. It is a settled principle of law that against a show-cause notice a writ is not maintainable as mere issuance of show-cause notice does not affect the rights of the parties. It is only when an adverse order is passed in pursuance to the said notice that the right accrues in favour of the person against whom some adverse order is passed.

6. In the case of Union of India and Another v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana reported in 2006 (12) SCC 28, the Apex Court opined as under:

13. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge sheet or show-cause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramdesh Kumar Singh and others JT 1995 (8) SC 331, Special Director and another v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and another AIR 2004 SC 1467, Ulagappa and others v. Divisional Commissioner, Mysore and others 2001(10) SCC 639, State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma and another AIR 1987 SC 943 etc.

14. 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 af ects 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 other