THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.30722 OF 2011 ORDER: The proceedings under challenge in this Writ Petition is a show- cause notice dated 09.11.2011 whereby the petitioners were issued a notice, under Rule 8 read with Rule 5 (ii), asking them to show cause why penalty along with conversion fee under Section 6 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006 (for short, “the Act”) not be imposed on them. The petitioners were given fifteen days time to show cause from the date of receipt of the notice. Questioning the said proceedings dated 09.11.2011, the petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, would draw attention of this Court to the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.No.19992 of 2010 filed by the first petitioner along with another educational institution wherein this Court, by order dated 25.08.2010, disposed of the Writ Petition holding that: “In view of withdrawal of the application filed by the petitioners, I dispose of the writ petition declaring the seizure of the petitioners-college bus bearing No.AP9W 721 and demanding an amount of Rs.73,43,750/-, pursuant to the impugned Memo as illegal. However, at the same time, it is made clear that if the petitioners are using any land, which is covered by the application for non-agricultural purposes, it is open to the respondents to take further steps in pursuance of the notice dated 16.11.2008, and pass appropriate orders fixing the liability of the petitioners under Section 6 of the Act to collect the same from the petitioners. It is evident from the said order that the respondents were directed to take further steps in pursuance of the earlier notice dated 16.11.2008; pass appropriate orders; fix the liability of the petitioners; and collect the same from the petitioners. While the respondents could well have proceeded in pursuance of the earlier notice, they have chosen to issue a notice afresh on the petitioners on 09.11.2011. As had been held in Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse[1]; Divisional Forest Officer v. M. Ramalinga Reddy[2]; Saravani Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai[3]; M/s Vasavi Business Combines v. Commissioner of Customs[4]; M/s Jasper Industries Pvt. Ltd v. Commercial (CT), (Audit), Hyderabad[5]; and Shakti Met Dor Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise[6], this Court would, ordinarily, not interfere with a show-cause notice except in exceptional circumstances including when the impugned show-cause notice has been issued by an authority not competent to do so, or in cases of inherent lack of jurisdiction. Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, would submit that the various provisions of the Act would show that the petitioners are not liable to pay the penalty sought to be levied on them under the impugned show-cause notice; and the remedy by way of a reply is not efficacious. I do not agree. All contentions, including on the question whether or not a penalty can be imposed under the provisions of the Act, can as well be raised by the petitioners in their reply to the show-cause notice. I have no reason to doubt that, on the petitioners submitting their objections thereto, the first respondent shall consider those objections in accordance with law; pass orders thereupon; and thereafter, if need be, take action in accordance with law. Since the period stipulated in the show-cause notice is said to have expired yesterday, I consider it appropriate to grant one more week’s time from today to the petitioners to submit their objections to the show-cause notice. In case the objections are filed within the time stipulated hereinabove, the first respondent shall consider the said objections, and thereafter pass orders in accordance with law. In case no objections are filed within the time stipulated hereinabove, it is open to the first respondent to proceed and take action in accordance with law. Subject to the observations hereinabove, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J November 22, 2011 Note: Issue C.C. by 25.11.2011. B/O.MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.30722 OF 2011 November 22, 2011 MD [1] (2004) 3 SCC 440 [2] (2007)9 SCC 286 [3] 2010(1) ALD 40 (DB) [4] Judgment of A.P.H.C. D.B in W.P.No.16170 of 2010 dated 28.7.2010 [5] Judgment of A.P.H.C.D.B. in W.P.No.18725 of 2010 dated 27.8.2010 [6] Judgment of A.P.H.C. D.B. in W.P. No.11855 of 2010 dated 16.11.2010