1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4678 OF 2009 Sahebrao Ramrao Shinde .. Petitioner Versus Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad through its Chief Executive Officer and anr. .. Respondents Shri R.L.Kute, Advocate for petitioner Mrs.Geeta Deshpande, Advocate for respondents 1 and 2 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ DATE : 18th March 2010 PER COURT : 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which impugns a show-cause notice issued by the respondents, dated 17.6.2009, which is annexed to the petition by the petitioner as Exh. “I” to the petition. The aforesaid show-cause notice calls upon the petitioner to explain as to why certain period should not be declared as non working days. The petitioner was called upon to given his explanation. The petitioner instead of responding to the show-cause notice, on 1st July 2009 immediately filed a petition in this Court. 2 2. The principal contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner was no doubt convicted by the Courts below for an offence punishable under Section 147 and Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code but the petitioner came to be extended the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act in Criminal Revision Application No.117 of 2004 filed by the present petition challenging his conviction. The judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 4.5.2007 has been annexed by the petitioner to this petition as Exh.”A”. The learned Single Judge while concluding the judgment observed that since the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act was given to the present petitioner, the conviction of the petitioner would not affect his services or for grant of pension. The contention of the learned Counsel, therefore, is that the aforesaid show- cause notice has been issued in flagrant contravention of the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court rendered in the aforesaid Criminal Revision Application. 3. We have heard Shri R.L.Kute, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.Geeta Deshpande, learned Counsel for respondent No.1. The learned Counsel for respondent No.1 has supported the show- cause notice and has urged before us that the recitals in the show-cause notice are not in any manner influenced by the observations made by the learned Single Judge. 3 4. Challenge to the show-cause notice can only be made if it is pointed out that the said show-cause notice is totally non est in the eye of law for absolute want of jurisdiction of the authority to even investigate into facts or issue to the said show-cause notice. Such does not appear to be the case in the present case. There is no jurisdictional error in issuing the show-cause notice by respondent No.1. The Supreme Court in “Special Director and another Versus Mohd.Ghulam Ghouse and another, (2004) 3 Supreme Court Cases 440, has observed that such petitions should not be entertained for the mere asking and as a matter of routine. In the present case, it would be appropriate if the petitioner responds to the said show-cause notice and submits his reply as the petitioner has adequate remedies in law, in the event an order adverse in the interest to the petitioner is passed. 5. Mrs.Geeta Deshpande, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 has stated before us that pursuant to the show-cause notice no orders have been passed. In that light of the matter, therefore, we permit the petitioner to submit his reply to the said show-cause notice and expect respondent No.1 to deal with the reply and decide the show-cause notice, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. The petitioner to submit his reply to the said show-cause notice within three weeks from today. 4 6. The Writ Petition, therefore, is dismissed with the aforesaid liberty to the petitioner to respond to the said show-cause notice by filing his reply within three weeks from today. We make it clear that since this matter relates to the grant of pension and other service benefits, respondent No.1 shall decide the proceedings of the show-cause notice as expeditiously as possible and without any undue delay. 7. Petition is thus dismissed with the aforesaid liberty with no orders as to costs. ( S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.) ( P.V. HARDAS, J.) (vvr/4678.09wp)