1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09.09.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.(MD).No.10252 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 V.N.Nawabali, Office Assistant : Petitioner Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Secretary to Government, Backward Classes, Most Backward Classes and Minorities Welfare (S2) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Chief Executive Officer, Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, No.1, Jaffer Syrang Street, Vallal Seethakathi Nagar, Chennai-600 001. 3.The Executive Officer, Fazilsha Aulia Thaikka, Kottar, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the second respondent in connection with the impugned show cause notices issued by him in his proceedings in Rc.No.14120/E1/2000, dated 27.01.2010 and Rc.No.14120/E1/2000, dated 09.02.2011 and quash the both as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, direct the first and second respondents to treat the petitioner's service as regular Wakf Board employee with effect from his initial appointment i.e., on 08.06.1999 and pay all service and monetary benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu For Respondent No.1 : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen Additional Government Pleader For Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.K.Senthil ORDER Impugned proceedings are nothing but show cause notices dated 27.01.2010 and 09.02.2011 respectively of the Chief Executive Officer, Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, No.1, Jaffer Syrang Street, Vallal Seethakathi Nagar, Chennai-600 001, the second respondent herein. For https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 both the show cause notices, the petitioner has submitted detailed explanations dated 31.05.2010 and 15.02.2011 respectively. When the petitioner has already submitted detailed explanations to the show cause notices, it is not open to him to prefer a Writ Petition, assailing the correctness of the show cause notices, after a span of nearly one year and eight months, in respect of the first show cause notice dated 27.01.2010 and seven months, in respect of the second show cause notice dated 09.02.2011. 2. Courts have consistently held that the Writ Petition, challenging a show cause notice, is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, unless it lacks jurisdiction, which admittedly, is not the case of the petitioner. Useful reference can be made to the following decisions of the Supreme Court: (i) In State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma, reported in (1987) 2 SCC 179, the Supreme Court at paragraph No.9 has held as follows: "9. The High Court was not justified in quashing the show cause notice. When a show cause notice is issued to a government servant under a statutory provision calling upon him to show cause, ordinarily the government servant must place his case before the authority concerned by showing cause and the courts should be reluctant to interfere with the notice at that stage unless the notice is shown to have been issued palpably without any authority of law. ‘The purpose of issuing show cause notice is to afford opportunity of hearing to the government servant and once cause is shown it is open to the Government to consider the matter in the light of the facts and submissions placed by the government servant and only thereafter a final decision in the matter could be taken. Interference by the court before that stage would be premature, the High Court in our opinion ought not have interfered with the show cause notice." (ii) In Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse, reported in (2004) 3 SCC 440, the Supreme Court has held as follows: "5. 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 the 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 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. Further, when the court passes an interim order it should be careful to see that the statutory functionaries specially and specifically constituted for the purpose are not denuded of powers and authority to initially decide the matter and ensure that ultimate relief which may or may not be finally granted in the writ petition is not accorded to the writ petitioner even at the threshold by the interim protection granted." 3. When the petitioner has submitted detailed explanations to the show causes notices, stated supra, a remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not lie, to convert this Court into as an administrative authority to address the correctness of the show cause notice, on its merits with reference to the explanations submitted. It is for the Chief Executive Officer, Tamil Nadu Wakf, Chennai, to pass appropriate orders, by considering the explanations of the petitioner. Hence, the Writ Petition to quash the show cause notices is liable to be dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Chief Executive Officer, Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, No.1, Jaffer Syrang Street, Vallal Seethakathi Nagar, Chennai-600 001, the second respondent herein, may be directed to pass orders on the proceedings dated 27.01.2010 and 09.02.2011 respectively. 5. Considering the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the second respondent herein is directed to pass orders on the above said proceedings, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The request of the petitioner for disbursement of salary shall also be considered, while passing orders on the abovesaid proceedings. 6. With the above observation, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Records) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 To 1.The Secretary to Government, Backward Classes, Most Backward Classes and Minorities Welfare (S2) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Chief Executive Officer, Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, No.1, Jaffer Syrang Street, Vallal Seethakathi Nagar, Chennai-600 001. 3.The Executive Officer, Fazilsha Aulia Thaikka, Kottar, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. +one cc to Special Government Pleader, Sr.No. 30910 +1cc to Mr.Thalai Muthuarasu, Advocate, Sr.No.30748 Order made in W.P.(MD).No.10252 of 2011 Dated: 09.09.2011 sml SMA/26.9.2011/6C/4P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/