HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION NO. 23432 OF 2011 Friday, the Nineteenth day of August, Two Thousand and Eleven Between Sree Vani Educational Society, Rep. by its Secretary N. Aseerwadam Petitioner AND The Director of School Education, Saifabad, Hyderabad and others Respondents ORDER: The petitioner is challenging the show cause notice issued by the second respondent – Regional Joint Director, School Education, Kakinada, in RC No. 4588/B2/2008-2 dated 4.6.2011. The said show cause notice states that a complaint was received alleging that the petitioner society obtained recognition for conducting classes VIII to X for the period from 2007-2008 to 2016- 2017 vide proceedings Rc.No.866/A1/2008 dated 7.3.2008 by producing fabricated registered lease deed for play area. A preliminary report is obtained in this regard through the Deputy Educational Officer, Eluru, West Godavari District and the District Educational Officer, West Godavari District and in view of the same, the second respondent has issued the show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to submit its explanation as to why the provisional/temporary recognition should not be cancelled. The impugned show cause notice is challenged mainly on the ground that on the same date i.e. 4.6.2011 another show cause notice was issued and the petitioner has submitted explanation thereto. Therefore, it is the contention of the petitioner that the second show cause notice, which is impugned in the writ petition is not competent. I am unable to accept the contention. In the first notice (Rc. No.4588/B2/2008-1) dated 4.6.2011, the second respondent has called for certain particulars with regard to the petitioner society such as accommodation provided by the institution and the details as to the play area, etc. Insofar as the second notice (Rc. No.4588/B2/2008-2) dated 4.6.2011 action is proposed on the ground that the recognition was obtained by submitting fake and fabricated registered lease deed. A perusal of both the notices show that while under the first notice certain particulars were called for and in the second notice, action has been proposed. Hence, it cannot be said that both the notices relate to the same cause. Even otherwise, action impugned is only a show cause notice whereunder the petitioner is called upon to submit his explanation. It is not in dispute that the second respondent is competent to initiate proceedings contemplated under the show cause notices. Admittedly both the notices have not resulted in any order so far. It is well settled that this court will not entertain a writ petition challenging any action at the stage of show cause notice, except in cases where the very issuance of the notice is without jurisdiction. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the writ petition is not maintainable and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ Justice Noushad Ali August 19, 2011 MAS