HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR PETITIONER WRIT PETITION (C ) N0.7502/2010 Devendra Kumar Pandey, S/o Shri Kashi Prasad Pandey, aged about 50 years, Chairman of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahkari Krishi Avam Gramin Vikas Bank Maryadity, Raipur, Tahsil and District- Raipur (C.G.) RESPONDENTS Versus 1 State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Cooperative, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2 The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Raipur, Vivekanand Complex, Vivekanand Nagar, Pension Bada Chowk, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 Zila Sahkari Gramin Avam Krishi Vikas Bank Maryadit, Janjgir, through its Chief Executive Officer, Zila Sahkari Gramin Avam Krishi Vikas Bank Maryadit, Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) 4 Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahkari Krishi Avam Gamin Vikas Bank Maryadit, Raipur, B Block, First Floor, R.D.A. Building, Sharda Chowk, Raipur(C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearance: Mr.Sanjay K. Agarwal and Mr.Saurabh Sharma, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. A.S.Kachhwaha, Dy. Advocate General for the State/respondent No.1 on advance copy. 2. WRIT PETITION (C ) N0.7502/2010 ./ ORDER (16.12.2010) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J. Heard on admission. Petitioner - Devendra' Kumar Pandey is Chairman of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahkari Krishi Avam Gramin Vikas Bank Maryadit, Raipur. By way of this writ petition, he has challenged the validity of notice dated 10.08.2010 and subsequent reminders extending the dates for filing reply to the said notice (Annexure P/1) collectively. Mr. Sanjay K. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued that the grounds raised in the notice are not tenable and on the above grounds, the notice sent to the petitioner is not maintainable. He referred to the decision rendered in the matter of M/s. Siemens Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others. 2006 AIR^SCW 6380. A perusal of the notice (Annexure P/1) yvould show that it is simply a show cause notice issued under Section 53(13) of C.G. Co- operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1960"). By raising various grounds, the Registrar Cooperative Societies Chhattisgarh, has called upon the petitioner to show cause and file his reply on the grounds raised in the impugned notice. In the Special Director and Another vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and another. JT 2004(1) SC 206. the Supreme Court held that unless the High Court is satisfied that the show cause notice was totally non est in the eye of 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 petitionershould invariably be directed to respond to the show cause notice and take all stands high lighted in the writ petition. In the present case, the notice has been issued under Section 53(13) ofthe Act, 1960, which gives authority to the concerned Registrar to issue a notice under the said provisions. It is not a case that the notice can be sajd to be bad in law for absolute want of jurisdiction of the authority to even investigate into facts or the notice which may betermed as non est. WRIT PETITION (C ) N0.7502/2010 In M/s Siemens Ltd. (Supra). the Supreme Court held that when show cause ssued by Municipal Corporation for recovery of cess from appellant, a multi location company on ground of import of goods from factory outside municipal limit, shows that the statutory authority has already applied its mind and has formed an opinion as regards the liability or otherwise of the appellant, the writ petition would be maintainable. At the same time, it was held that ordinarily a writ petition would not be entertained in the matter of show cause notice unless the same inter alia appearsto have been withoutjurisdiction. In the present case, it does not appear that the authority has formed its opinion. The facts have been narrated and the petitioner has been called upon to file reply. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances ofthe case, 1 do not deem it appropriate to entertain this writ petition. The writ petition therefore is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. However, the petitioner would be at. liberty to approach the concerned authority to file his reply to the show cause notice issued againsthim. — —- Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha