IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 16.07.2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE T.RAJA Writ Petition No.45260 of 2006 (O.A.No.2065 of 2000) J.Venkatesan ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Commissioner Ambattur Municipality Office of the Municipality Ambattur,Chennai 53. 2. The Secretary Municipal Administration & Water Supply Fort St. George Chennai 9. ... Respondents Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on being transferred to this Court on the abolition of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent relating to Na.Ka.No.8200/99/S-1 dt 6.3.2000 and quash the same as illegal and contrary to the order of the Government and direct the respondents to retain the petitioner as Sanitary Supervisor at Ambattur Municipality. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Radhakrishnan For 1st Respondent: Mr.P.I.Thirumoorthy For 2nd Respondent: Mr.S.Gopinathan, AGP ORDER The petitioner had approached the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai by filing Original Application No.2065 of 2000, challenging the order of the first respondent dated 6.3.2000, a show cause notice. The said Original Application had been transferred to the file of this Court on abolition of the Tribunal and renumbered as W.P.No.45260 of 2006. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of the present writ petition are as follows:- The petitioner was appointed as NMR on 1.8.1990 and working in the office of the first respondent Municipality continuously. While so, the Commissioner of Municipal Administration has passed an order to fill up the post of sanitary Supervisor in his order No.M.M.No.50086/99/J-3 dated 21.7.1999. Subsequently, in view of the order passed by the Commissioner of Municipal Administration, the first respondent herein has appointed the petitioner, being the senior most NMR and in view of the appointment made by the first respondent, the petitioner also joined in the post of sanitary supervisor on 28.7.1999. Thereafter, the first respondent issued a show cause notice on 27.1.2000 calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation as to why his appointment order should not be cancelled. The petitioner also on receipt of the said show cause notice has given his reply raising the objection for cancelling the order dated 27.5.1999. However, even after submission of his reply, the petitioner filed an application in O.A.No. 780 of 2000 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, challenging the said show cause notice. The Tribunal, after considering the case of the petitioner set aside the order of the respondent in Na.Ka.No.8200/99/H-1 dated nil January 2000 giving liberty to the first respondent to issue a fresh order with reasons based on which the appointment of the petitioner is sought to be cancelled. 3. In pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.780 of 2000 dated 10.2.2000, the present show cause notice in Na.Ka.No.8200/99/S1 dated 6.3.2000 was issued calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation as to why his appointment as sanitary supervisor be not cancelled as per G.O.125 . Immediately after receipt of the impugned show cause notice dated 6.3.2000, the petitioner also made his representation dated 8.3.2000 to the first respondent bringing to his notice that the aforesaid G.O.125 shall not apply to the case of the petitioner for cancellation of his appointment as Sanitary Supervisor and further requested the first respondent to cancel the show cause notice dated 6.3.2000. 4. The Tribunal at the time of entertaining the present O.A. has granted interim stay. It is settled law that neither this court nor the Tribunal can entertain any application challenging the show cause notice. In the case on hand, the petitioner has also given his explanation taking shelter under G.O. No.125 dated 27.5.1999. Before the respondent considers his explanation, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the show cause notice dated 6.3.2000, which is a premature one. As it has been held in a catena of decisions of this Court as well as the Apex Court, that no court at the stage of issuance of show cause notice shall interfere with the show cause notice, this court finds that there is no substance in the present writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Useful reference can be had from the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and another Vs. Vicco Laboratories reported in 2008(2) CTC 511, wherein it is held that the interference at the stage of issuance of show cause notice should be rare and not in a routine manner. Mere assertion by the writ petitioner that notice was without jurisdiction and/or abuse of process of law would not suffice. In the present case, even before considering the explanation, the petitioner has filed the writ petition challenging the issuance of show cause notice. Therefore, this Court, while sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not inclined to interfere with the issuance of the show cause notice. Hence the writ petition stands dismissed. It is needless to mention that as the petitioner has already given explanation to the impugned show cause notice dated 6.3.2000, the respondents are directed to consider the said explanation on merits and in accordance with law. No costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar //true copy// Sub Asst.Registrar krr/ To 1.The Secretary Municipal Administration & Water Supply Fort St. George Chennai 9. 2.The Commissioner Ambattur Municipality Office of the Municipality Ambattur,Chennai 53. 1 cc to Mr.P.I.Thirumoorthy, Advocate, Sr.No.51690 1 cc to Government Pleader, Sr.No.51774 W.P.No.45260 of 2006 NSM {CO} TP/17.9.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/