IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16618 of 2009 1. RAJMATI DEVI W/O SHRI RAM BABU RAI R/O VILL.- CHIRAIATAR, HAJRATSAI, P.S.- DHANARUA, DISTT.- PATNA Versus 1. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL PATNA HIGH COURT 2. THE DISTRICT JUDGE CIVIL COURT, DARBHANGA 3. THE REGISTRAR CIVIL COURT, DARBHANGA ----------- 2/ 18/01/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner has been issued a second show cause notice on 10.11.2009 with regard to her age. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already submitted medical proof of her age. Learned counsel for the State counters to submit that the petitioner can easily place all materials in her reply to the show cause notice issued to her. The Supreme Court in (2006) 12 S.C.C. (UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER Versus KUNISETTY SATYANARAYANA) has cautioned with regard to interference by courts against show cause notices which are not contrary to law and do not suffer on account of lack of jurisdiction. Prima facie, this Court is satisfied that there is no justification for this Court 2 to interfere with the show cause notice dated 10.11.2009. All that has been asked for is an explanation from her by an authority competent to do so for reasons given in the show cause notice. If she files a reply, the authority considers the same, it is purely speculative as to what shall happen thereafter. There is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the show cause notice. The writ application is disposed with the observation that the petitioner may file her reply to the same within a maximum period of four weeks whereafter the appropriate authority shall pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. The writ application stands disposed. KC/ ( Navin Sinha, J.)