1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5846 OF 2009 Pandurang Bahuudeshiya Sevabhavi Sanstha and others 10 PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others RESPONDENTS Mr.A.S.Bayas, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr.N.B.Khandare, learned GP for respondent no.1 to 4 (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 04/09/2009 PER COURT : 1. This is a frivolous and pre-mature petition filed by the petitioners. Undisputedly the proposals submitted by the petitioners are pending consideration with the competent authorities. Towards the adjudication of their proposals, the respondents appointed private NGO, who has visited the premises of the petitioners and pursuant to the report submitted by the private NGO, certain deficiencies which were noticed came to be informed to the petitioners by show cause notices dated 14/07/2009 which are annexed to the petition. By virtue of the show cause notices dated 2 14/07/2009, the petitioners were called upon to submit their explanation within 7 days. The petitioners instead of responding to the show cause notices, have filed the present petition on 11/08/2009 i.e. after the period specified in the show cause notices. 2. In any event, it is not seriously disputed before us that the authorities who have issued these show cause notices lacks jurisdiction in issuing the show cause notices. A challenge to the show cause notice can only be maintained on the ground of inherent lack of jurisdiction of the authority issuing the said show cause notices. In this behalf, a reference may usefully be made to the judgment of Supreme Court in Special Director and another Versus Mohd.Ghulam Ghouse and another, 2004(2) SCC 440. In the aforesaid judgment, the Supreme Court has held that “unless the High Court is satisfied of the nullity of the show-cause notice for want of jurisdiction of the authority concerned to even investigate the facts, held, writ petition challenging the show cause notice should not be entertained as a matter of routine”. In the present case, the authority who has issued the show cause notices does not lack the jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice. 3. What is challenged in the present petition, which we have labelled it as a pre-mature petition, is that the visit of a private NGO is contrary to the provisions of section 62 of The Juvenile Justice Act and rule 69 and 70 framed thereunder. In that background therefore it is urged before us for quashing and setting aside the show cause 3 notices. As pointed out to us the proposals are pending consideration and the petitioners are instead of responding to the show cause notices, have filed this petition in this Court after the period specified in the show cause notice for responding to the same has lapsed. 4. In the light what has been stated before us, according to us this petition is not only just pre-mature but it is a frivolous petition. We accordingly dismiss this petition quantifying costs of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by each of the petitioner. We grant liberty to the petitioners to urge the grounds raised in this petition in respect of challenge to the show cause notices as and when an order adverse to the interest of the petitioners is passed and which would be challenged before the appropriate authorities. Writ petition is accordingly summarily dismissed with costs as quantified above with the aforesaid liberty. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/SEP 2009/wp5846-09