HIGH COURT OF CHM^TTISGARH. BILASPUR Writ Petttion (Cl No. 5398 of2008 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS 1 2. Smt. Meera Devi Agrawal, W/o. Late Radhakishan Agrawal, aged about 62 years, Through: Power of Attorney holder her son Natwar Lal Agrawal, S/o Shri Radhakishan Agrawal, aged about 39 years, R/o Kaserpara, Chakradhar Nagar, Gaurishankar Temple Road, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Urban Administration & Development Department, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG) The Secretary, Govemment of Chhattisgarh, Department of Revenue, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG) The Collector, Oistrict Raigarh, Chhattisgarh The Munjcipal Corporation, Raigarh, Through: The Commissioner, Municipaj Corporation, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indial Appearance: Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Advocateforthepetitioner. Mrs. Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyerforthe State/respondents 1 to 3 on advance copy. ORALORrcR (08.02.2010) SUNIL KUMARStNHA. J. (1) Heard. (2) Petitioner-Smt. Meera Devi Agrawal has filed this petition for the following relief(3):- 3. 4. W.P.fCtNo. €398of 2909 "10. REUEF(SISOUGHT: i. The Hon'ble Court may kindty be pleased to <»11for the entire records, pertaining to the petftioner's case from the possession of the respondent authorifies. ii. The Hon'ble Court may ktndly be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari by <3|uashing the impugRed show cause notice dated 27-31/08/2009 issued by the Additional ColleGtorRaigarh (Annexure-P-1). iii. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent arthorities not to disturb the petitioner from her peaceful living by their illegat acts. iv. Issue any other order or orders, writ or writs, direction or directions as this Hon'bte court may deem fit in the facts and drcumstances of the case in favour of the petitloner and against the respondents. v. Cost of the petition be allowed." (3) The petitioner, thus in substance, is praying for quashment of the show-cause notice dated 27-3t/08/2009 (Annexure-P/1) issued by the AddJtional Collector, Raigarh. A perusal ofttw notice (Annexure-P/1) would show that the same has been Issued on account of alteged contravention of the terms and conditions of the grant eariler made in favour of the petftioner, by whteh, the fiatta of subject tand was granted in herfavour. ~ (4) Mr. Rahut Tamaskar, leamed counsel for the petitioner, argues that the notice is malafide and the facts contained in the notice are incorrect. (5) \n Soeclal Director and Another -Vs- MoAd. 6hulam Ghouse andAnothw. f2004l3 SCC440, the Supreme Court held that "Untess the High Court is satisfied that the show-cause nottoe was totally non est in the eye of the law for absolute want of jurisdiction of the authority to (4 ''%:. t-L a ^.../r ^ W.P.fa No. S398 6f2009 even investigate into facts, writ petitions should not be entertained for the mere asking and as a matter of routine, and the wrrt petitioner should invariably be directed to respond to the show-cause nottce and take all stands highlighted in the writ petition. Whether the show-cause notice was founded on any legal premises, is a jurisdictional issue whteh can even be urged by the recipient of the notice and such issue ateo can be adjudicated by the authority issuingthe very notice inttiaHy.before ttie aggrieved could approach the courf; (6) In the present case, ttiough the grounds of mataflde have been taken but it has not been shown that the authority issutng the notice was havingnojtirisdiGtionatalltoissuesychnoticeleadjngjttobetotallynon est. Moreover, the petition, at this stage, against the Jssuance of show- cause notice cannot be entertained merely ori the oral sybrajssions regarding malafides. (7) In the facts and circumstances of the case, particularty in light of the above judgmentof the Supreme Court, I am not inctined to entertain this petition at this stage. (8) Accordingly, W.P.(C) No. 5398/2009 is dismissed at the molron stage itself. However, the petitioner woutd be at liberty to approaKh the concemed authority by fittn^the repty to the show-cause taking therein atl ^e-/^ y ^^ —- -—— Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge vattt-