THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.5781 OF 2010 DATED:12.03.2010 Between: G.Satyanarayana .. Petitioner And The Chief Executive Officer, Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board, at Haj House, Opp: Public Garden, Nampally, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.5781 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is statedly owner of land admeasuring Acs.4.29 guntas in Survey Nos.777, 790 and 850 of Gadwal Village and Mandal in Mahabubnagar District. According to him, occupancy certificates under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1954, were issued to him, and in pursuance thereof the Tahsildar issued consequential proceedings dated 28.07.1988 recognizing the petitioner as pattedar. The petitioner and his two brothers converted the land into residential plots and obtained layout being L.P.No.79 of 2002 from the Director of Town and Country Planning, Government of Andhra Pradesh. The first respondent issued the impugned notification dated 15.02.2010. The sum and substance of the same is that the land comprised in Survey Nos.666, 730, 732 to 735, 773 to 775, 777 and 790 admeasuring Acs.100.10 guntas is Inam land of Qazath Gadwal and that the petitioner unauthorisedly encroached into the land admeasuring Acs.3.02 guntas in Survey No.777, and in Survey Nos.790 to an extent of Ac.0.33 guntas. Therefore, the petitioner was asked to submit explanation as to why he should not be evicted from the encroachment under Section 54(3) of the Wakf Act, 1995 (the Act). The petitioner contends that unless and until the Wakf is registered, the Chief Executive Officer cannot assume jurisdiction under Section 54(3) of the Act. Therefore, he submits that the Writ Petition is maintainable against the notice as the Chief Executive Officer suffers from imminent lack of jurisdiction. This is refuted by learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent. It is axiomatic that ordinarily a Writ Petition for a judicial review would not lie against a show cause notice which is issued in compliance with the statutory provisions. (See State of Uttar Pradesh v. Shri Brahm Datt Sharma[1] and Spl. Officer, Urban Land Ceilings, Hyderabad v. M. Vijayalakshmi [2]). When the authority issuing show cause notice statedly or allegedly lacks jurisdiction, can a writ petition be entertained? This question also is no more res integra. In Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse[3], the Supreme Court held. 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 enquires 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 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. Against any order passed under Section 54(3) aggrieved can file suit under Section 54(4) of the Act. Further, per Section 6 of the Act, whenever a dispute arises, such matter has to be decided by the State of Wakf Tibunal. The Act provides such a remedy under Section 83(2) of the Act. Therefore, the remedies available to the petitioner are speedy and effective and the Writ Petition at the stage of notice cannot be entertained. The Writ Petition is misconceived and accordingly is dismissed without considering the merits of the case. The petitioner is given ten days time to submit his explanation to the Chief Executive Officer. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) 12.03.2010 KH [1] AIR 1987 SC 943 [2] 1998 (6) ALT 627 (D.B.) [3] (2004) 3 SCC 440