[2026:RJ-JD:7808]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2221/2026

1. Mahaveer Prasad Meena S/o Madulal Meena, Aged About

51 Years, Resident Of New Kuradiya, Tehsil Jahazpur, District Bhilwara, State Presently Khastra No. 37 Village Malola, Tehsil And District Bhilwara, Rajasthan 311001.

2. Mukesh Kumar Gurjar S/o Shri Khemraj Gurjar, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Near Temple, Chandra Pura, Kancharawas, Talk Raj Present Khastra No. 37 Village Malola, Tehsil And District Bhilwara, Rajasthan 311001.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Revenue Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 302005.

2. Highway Administrator, National Highways Authority Of India, Project Implementation Unit, Udaipur, Project Office Plot No. 465, Near Saras Dairy, Govardhan Vilas, Udaipur, Rajasthan 313001.

3. District Collector, Collectorate Office, Bhilwara District, Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

4. C.g. Tollway Limited, Through Its Authorized Officer, 11Th Floor, /1101, Hiranandani Knowledge Park, Technologies Street, Hill Side Avenue, Powai, Mumbai, Maharashtra

400076.

5. Tehsildar, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

6. Urban Improvement Trust, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankit Somani For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinay Kothari through V.C.

Mr. Bhavyadeep Singh Mr. Chirag Khalani Ms. Anamika Baid HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT

Order

11/02/2026

1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the notice dated 13.01.2026, whereby directions were issued to petitioner No. 2 – Mr. Mukesh Kumar Gurjar, to remove encroachment upon the land of National Highways Authority of India (“NHAI”), as reflected in the site inspection report dated 26.12.2025 by competent authorities of Revenue Department in the presence of representatives of respondent – NHAI as well as petitioner No. 2 himself, and Tehshildar, UIT.

2. Petitioner No. 2 submitted a reply to said notice contending that he is not a necessary party and the notice ought to be issued to one Mr. Mahaveer Prasad Meena, who owns the said ‘dhabha’.

3. Learned counsel for respondent submits that the action taken by respondent is strictly in accordance with law and in view of the site inspection report dated 26.12.2025, which clearly shows that encroachment has been made upon land bearing Araji No. 29/1, which stands recorded in the name of NHAI.

3.1 It is further submitted that although petitioner No. 2, in his reply to the notice, claimed that he is not a necessary party, he has nevertheless filed the present writ petition. The present petition, therefore, is nothing but an abuse of the process of law.

3.2 Learned counsel for the respondent has also raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of writ petition against a show-cause notice.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

5. This Court finds that the preliminary objection raised by respondent regarding the maintainability of the present writ petition is wholly justified. It is a settled position of law that a writ petition is ordinarily not maintainable against a mere show-cause notice. Even otherwise, petitioner No. 2 has already submitted a reply dated 19.01.2026, and as per the submissions of learned counsel for petitioners, a subsequent reply has also been filed on behalf of both the petitioners. In view of the aforesaid, when the petitioners have already replied to show-cause notice and no final adverse order has yet been passed against them, no cause of action arises at this stage for the petitioners to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226.

5.1 The Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCC 28 held that show-cause notice, by itself, does not create a cause of action. The relevant paragraph is reproduced herein below:

“14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice o