[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Rooplal Daulatram Mandsaur vs The State Of M.P. on 8 January, 2026
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:568
1 WP-730-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI
ON THE 8 th OF JANUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 730 of 2026
M/S ROOPLAL DAULATRAM MANDSAUR
Versus
THE STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Amit Singh Sisodia - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Bhaskar Agrawal - Govt. Advocate for the respondent / State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla
The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India challenging the notice dated 23.12.2025 by which the petitioner has
been given show cause notice proposing blacklisting of the petitioner,
termination of the ongoing contract and cancellation of registration.
02. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the order of
show cause notice is merely an eyewash and the respondents have already
determined to cancel the contract and to blacklist the petitioner.
03. Upon perusal of the impugned show cause notice, we find that the
notice has been issued for suspension of registration of the petitioner /
blacklisting on the ground that on verification of the tender documents of the
petitioner, the Regional Transport Officer had found that the Motor Grader as
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:568
2 WP-730-2026
per the requirement of the NIT condition was not the same whose details
were mentioned in the tender document. The impugned order is only a show
cause notice and the petitioner has been granted time to file the reply. There
is no allegation of malafide or lack of competence, therefore, in absence of
any allegation of malafide, the petition cannot be entertained against a show
cause notice.
04. In the case of (2004) 3 SCC 440, Special Director and another vs.
Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and another, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
deprecated the practice of the High Court in entertaining the writ petitions
questioning the legality of the show cause notices stalling enquiries as
proposed and retarding investigative process to find actual facts with the
participation and in the presence of the parties. The relevant extract from the
said decision is reproduced as under :-
"5. This Court in a large number of cases has deprecated the practice of
the High Courts entertaining writ petitions questioning legality of the
show cause notices stalling enquiries as proposed and retarding
investigative process to find actual facts with the participation and in
the presence of the parties. 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 petitioner should invariably be directed to
respond to the show cause notice and take all stands highlighted in the
writ petition. Whether the show cause notice was founded on any legal
premises is a jurisdictional issue which can even be urged by the
recipient of the notice and such issues also can be adjudicated by the
authority issuing the very notice initially, before the aggrieved could
approach the Court, Further, when the Court passes an interim order it
should be careful to see that the statutory functionaries specially and
specifically constituted for the purpose are not denuded of powers and
authority to initially decide the matter and ensure that ultimate relief
which may or may not be finally granted in the writ petition is not
accorded to the writ petitioner even at the threshold by the interim
protection, granted."
05. The principle laid down in the aforesaid judgment rendered by the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:568
3 WP-730-2026
Supreme Court in Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse (supra) was reiterated by the
Supreme Court in its later judgment reported as (2006) 12 SCC 33, Siemens
Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and others, wherein it was held as under :-
"9. Although ordinarily a writ court may not exercise its discretionary
jurisdiction in entertaining a writ petition questioning a notice to show
cause unless the same inter alia appears to have been without
jurisdiction as has been held by this Court in some decisions including
State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Brahm Datt Sharma and anr, AIR 1987 SC
943, Special Director and another vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and
another, (2004) 3 SCC 440 and Union of India and another vs.
Kunisetty Satyanarayana, 2006 (12) SCC 28, but the question herein
has to be considered from a different angle, viz, when a notice is
issued with pre-meditation, a writ petition would be maintainable. In
such an event, even if the courts directs the statutory authority to hear
the matter afresh, ordinarily such hearing would not yield any fruitful
purpose [See K.I. Shephard and others vs. Union of India and others,
(1987) 4 SCC 431: AIR 1988 SC 686 ]. It is evident in the instant case
that the respondent has clearly made up its mind. It explicitly said so
both in the counter affidavit as also in its purported show cause."
06. In view of the aforesaid, writ petition against the show cause
notice is not entertained. However, if the petitioner files reply to the said
notice, the Competent Authority shall consider the said reply and pass the
order in accordance with the law after affording opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner.
07. With the aforesaid liberty, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) (ALOK AWASTHI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Divyansh
