o/Amv/ (D WRIT pETITION (C) No. W303 OF 2010 PETITIONER: ajesh Shukla, Son of late Shri Shiv Kumar Shukla, aged about 44 years, resident of Naya Sarkanda, Near Old Bridge, Bilaspur (CG) VERSUS 1 . / State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Urban Administration Department, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) Commissioner, Urban Administration and Development, RDA Building, Raipur (CG) Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur (CG) IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WR PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IT "$1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 4809 of 2010 PETITIONER : Rajesh Shukla VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Dr, N.K. Shukla, Senior Advocate with Shri Ravi Dutta, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.S. Kachhwaha, Deputy Advocate General for the State/ respondents No. 1, 2 & 3. ORDER IORAL! (Passed on 27‘ day ofAugust, 2010) Heard learned counsel forthe parties. Challenge in this petition is to the holding of proceedings on 25/08/2010 in the office of Directorate of Urban Administration and Development and further to quash the show cause notice dated 28/06/2010 (Annexure P/3). The main grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has not been supplied with requisite documents, which are required to be explained on the date of hearing. Thus, show cause notice dated 28/06/2010 is bad in law and the same i deserves to be dismissed. Dr. Shukla, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that though there is no prayer to direct the respondent authorities to supply the requisite documents, however, the same may be directed for the purpose off effective hearing and proper adjudication. Be that as it may, firstly the petitioner ought to‘have approached the authorities for supply of the requisite \ documents immediately on receipt of notice. Secondly, the petitioner shouid have responded to the Show cause notice before approaching this Courti No order prejudicial to the petitioner has been passed tili date and, as such, no cause of action arises, at this stage. Thus, the petition is premature. However, if an application is made to the respondent authorities by the petitioner, the respondent authorities may consider supplying of relevant documents to the petitioner at the earliest to enable him to file appropriate reply to the show cause notice before taking any decision on the show cause notice. . In the result, the writ petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. y_, Sdl- Satish K. Agnihotri ' Judge Gowri ’3? r