1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9416 of 2010 SOLANKI B.ED.TEACHER'S TRAINING College, Moti Nagar, Bara Telpa, P.o. Chapra, District Saran, Bihar through its Secretary Rama Kant Singh. Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS . -------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, Sr. Advocate Mr. Laxmi Kant Sharma,Advocate For the N.C.T.E. : Mr. S.N.Pathak, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prabhakar Tekriwal, Advocate with CWJC No.9425 of 2010 1. AL-MOMIN COLLEGE OF EDUCATION, Mohalla Aminabad, At + P.O. Bishunpura, Via Chirki Bazxar, District Gaya, through its principal Sri Sanjeet Kumar, son of Sri Ramesh Prasad Sinha, resident of D.N.Singh Lane, Mithapur (B-Area), PO GPO, PS Jakkanpur, District Patna. 2. Nezamia College of Education, Village Jamaluddin Chak, Gurgawan (Model Colony) PO Khagaul, Dist. Patna through its Principal Dr. Seema Gupta, W/o Dr. Ashutosh Kumar, resident of Mohalla Bazar Samiti, Near Saidpur Hostel,Q. No. 10, P.O. Mahendru, P.S. Agamkuan, District Patna …………… Petitioners Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr.Rajiv Kumar Verma, Sr. Advocate Mr. Bipin Kumar & Mr Arun Kumar, Advocates For N.C.T.E. : Mr.S.N.Pathak, Advocate For the State : S.C. 5. --------- 2. 16.06.2010 Heard leaned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Counsel for the State and the learned Counsel for the N.C.T.E.. The petitioners are aggrieved by the show cause notice dated 28.5.2010 issued under Section 17(1) N.C.T.E. Act, 1993 by N.C.T.E. in context of the grant of recognition. The show cause notice is not without jurisdiction and at this stage it is difficult to contemplate what final orders will be passed. If, the cause shown be accepted the petitioners may have no cause of action. A writ petition shall therefore not lie against a show cause notice which is not without jurisdiction. 2 The Supreme Court in (2006) 12 SCC 28 (Union of India Vs Auni Setty Satyanarayana) has held at paragraph 13 to 16 as follows:- “13. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge sheet or show-cause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board vs. Ramdesh Kumar Singh and others JT 1995 (8) SC 331, Special Director and another vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and another AIR 2004 SC 1467, Ulagappa and others vs. Divisional Commissioner, Mysore and others 2001(10) SCC 639, State of U.P. vs. Brahm Datt Sharma and another AIR 1987 SC 943 etc. 14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show- cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of any one. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance. 15. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show-cause notice or charge sheet. 16. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a charge-sheet or show-cause notice if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter.” To that extent this Court finds no merit in this writ application. Learned Counsel for the petitioners next urged that while certain other institutions issued similar show cause notices had 3 been granted six months’ time for reply to the show cause and removal of deficiencies etc. the petitioners have been subjected to hostile discrimination without any rational basis by grant of 21 days time only to them. The Court queried from the Counsel for the N.C.T.E., the constitutional justification to differentiate between persons similarly situated who had all been issued show cause notices on the issue of recognition and therefore formed one class. What was the rationale or criteria for differentiating between such persons who otherwise formed a class by themselves. Unless there be any rational basis having nexus, otherwise treating equals as unequals amounted to hostile discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Learned Counsel for the N.C.T.E. Submitted that this classification was based on the nature of the deficiencies. This Court finds it difficult to hold that it shall constitute a rational basis for differentiation as it appears to have no nexus inasmuch as all those to whom show cause notice has been issued for alleged deficiencies formed one class. The writ applications are disposed with the observation and direction that the time granted to the petitioners in the show cause notice has to be extended to the same period of six months as has been granted to other institutions. It is accordingly ordered. The writ applications stand disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)