THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.32305 of 2011 ORDER : This Writ Petition is filed against the Show Cause Notice, dated 25-10-2011 issued by the 2nd Respondent calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation as to why appropriate action should not be taken for cancellation of the death certificate, which is said to have been obtained by the petitioner with incorrect entries. 2. Petitioner’s father late Galib Sab, who was said to be a Muthavalli of Hazarath Syed Baji Shahed Dargah, died on 20-12-1974 and his death was registered in the Register of Deaths on 29-12-1974. A complaint appears to have been made through the son of one, Shaik Bibi to Respondents 1 and 2 alleging that the petitioner obtained false death certificate of his father and on the said compliant, enquiry is said to have been conducted. Thereafter, the 3rd Respondent submitted another complaint to the same effect. Taking note of the said complaint, the 2nd Respondent has issued the impugned notice dated 25-10-2011, calling for the explanation of the petitioner. 3. The said notice is challenged on the ground that a similar complaint was entertained earlier and after conducting enquiry, the same was closed, therefore, there is no warrant to conduct a second enquiry into the matter. This being the only ground raised, the contents of the impugned notice are required to be noticed. The notice reads that though enquiry report was submitted earlier, the authorities have not taken any action in the matter. Since the matter has been kept pending, a complaint in that regard has been received through the Collector’s Grievance Cell on 24- 10-2011 for appropriate action. The 2nd Respondent therefore issued the impugned show cause notice for taking further action. Responding to the same, the petitioner submitted explanation dated 27-10-2011 and sought for some information. The said material was furnished to the petitioner by the 2nd Respondent vide R.O.C.No.128/10, dated 30-11-2011 and admittedly orders are awaited. It is therefore evident that though enquiry was conducted, the matter has not been closed. 4. As a general rule this Court does not entertain a Writ Petition questioning the legality of a show cause notice, except in cases of lack of jurisdiction. The Apex Court in Special Director v. Mohd.Ghulam Ghouse [1] observed as follows : “This Court in a large number of cases has deprecated the practice of the High courts entertaining writ petitions questioning legality of the show-cause notices stalling enquiries as proposed and retarding investigative process to find actual facts with the participation and in the presence of the parties. Unless the High Court is satisfied that the show-cause notice was totally non est in the eye of law for absolute want of jurisdiction of the authority to even investigate into facts, writ petitions should not be entertained for the mere asking and as a matter of routine, and the writ petitioner should invariably be directed to respond to the show-cause notice and take all stands highlighted in the writ petition. Whether the show-cause notice was founded on any legal premises, is a jurisdictional issue which can even be urged by the recipient of the notice and such issues also can be adjudicated by the authority issuing the very notice initially, before the aggrieved could approach the court………” 5. Admittedly the impugned show cause notice does not suffer from lack of jurisdiction, since it has been issued by the Village Secretary- cum-Registrar of Births, 2nd Respondent herein, who is vested with the power, therefore challenge to the show cause notice at the threshold is not tenable. As observed by the Apex Court in the judgment cited above that whether the impugned show cause notice is founded on any legal premise can also be urged by the petitioner by submitting his explanation and such issue also can be adjudicated by the authority. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, I am not inclined to admit the Writ Petition and the Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. 7. Consequently, W.P.M.P.No.40152 of 2011 is dismissed as unnecessary. 8. However, since the petitioner is said to have received some material in pursuance of the letter dated 30-11-2011 of the 2nd Respondent, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner be permitted to submit further explanation. In view of the request, the petitioner is permitted to submit further explanation, if any and if so chooses within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 26th December, 2011. skmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.32305 of 2011 Date : 26-12-2011 Between : Shaik Basheed .. Petitioner and The District Panchayat Officer, Guntur, Guntur District & 2 Others .. Respondents [1] (2004) 3 SCC 440