Rajasthan High Court

M/S India Commercial Services vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 7 August, 2023

Bench: Ganesh Ram Meena

[2023:RJ-JP:16965]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3821/2021

M/s India Commercial Services, A Partnership Firm Having Its
Principal Place Of Business At 8/99, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur-
302023, Rajasthan, Through Its Partner, Rakesh Bargoti.
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government
         Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2.       Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
         Corporation Ltd., Through Its Managing Director, V.k.i.
         Area, Jaipur.
3.       Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
         Corporation Ltd., Through Sr. Regional Manager, V.k.i.
         Area, Jaipur.
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Gautam Bhadadra
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Ajeet Kumar Bhandari



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

                          Judgment / Order

07/08/2023

This present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner

challenging the show cause notice dated 04.02.2021, wherein it

has been observed that the matter of regularization of excess

land 799 Sqm. in favour of the allottee plot No.F-674(B),

Vishwakarma (VKI), Jaipur was examined and deliberated by the

Committee and it has been found that the excess land is not in

consonance with the Rule 12(B)-2(iv) and other relevant rules of

the RIICO Disposal of Land Rules, 1979 and therefore, the

petitioner was called upon to submit the reply within 15 days from

the issuance of the notice as to why the said regularization of

excess land 799 Sqm. land should not be withdrawn and why the

[2023:RJ-JP:16965] (2 of 5) [CW-3821/2021]

amount of deposited towards development charges of the excess

land i.e. 799 Sqm. should not be refunded.

Counsel for the respondents raised an issue in regard to

maintainability of the writ petition against to show cause notice,

submitting that the petitioner has an ample opportunity to submit

an explanation before the Competent Authority as by the

impugned, notice only the explanation has been called for from

the petitioner. Counsel further submits that in the garb of said

notice, the respondents are proceeding against the petitioner for

dispossession from alleged excess land.

The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Saroj

Jat W/o Shri Vedpal Takshat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.;

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13130/2017, observed as under:-

"9. The scope of interference in the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, against show cause notices, is limited. Though there is no bar as such for entertaining the writ petition at the stage of show cause notice, but it has been settled in catena of decisions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as also this Court as to when writ petition can be entertained at stage of issuance of the show cause notice.

10. In the case of Union of India and Others Vs. Coastal Container Transporters Association and Others, (2019) 20 SCC 446, while dealing with an issue with regard to dispute regarding classification of taxable services, their Lordships in the Hon'ble Supreme Court cautioned against exercise of writ jurisdiction as below:

"30. On the other hand, we find force in the contention of the learned Senior Counsel, Shri Radhakrishnan, appearing for the appellants that the High Court has committed error in entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at the stage of show-cause notices.

Though there is no bar as such for entertaining the writ petitions at the stage of show-cause notice, but it is settled

[2023:RJ-JP:16965] (3 of 5) [CW-3821/2021]

by a number of decisions of this Court, where writ petitions can be entertained at the show-cause notice stage. Neither it is a case of lack of jurisdiction nor any violation of principles of natural justice is alleged so as to entertain the writ petition at the stage of notice. The High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition, more so, when against the final orders appeal lies to this Court.

31. The judgment of this Court in Union of India v. Guwahati Carbon Ltd. (2012) 11 SCC 651, relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants also supports their case. In the aforesaid judgment, arising out of the Central Excise Act, 1944, this Court has held that excise law is a complete code in order to seek redress in excise matters and held that entertaining writ petition is not proper where alternative remedy under statute is available. When there is a serious dispute with regard to classification of service, the respondents ought to have responded to the show-cause notices by placing material in support of their stand but at the same time, there is no reason to approach the High Court questioning the very show-cause notices. Further, as held by the High Court, it cannot be said that even from the contents of show-cause notices there are no factual disputes.

32. Further, the judgment of this Court in Malladi Drugs & Pharma Ltd. v. Union of India (2020) 12 SCC 808, relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants also supports their case where this Court has upheld the judgment of the High Court which refused to interfere at show-cause notice stage."

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Another Versus Vicco Laboratories, (2007) 13 Supreme Court Cases 270 held as below:-

"31. Normally, the writ court should not interfere at the stage of issuance of show-cause notice by the authorities. In such a case, the parties get ample opportunity to put forth their contentions before the authorities concerned and to satisfy the authorities concerned about the absence of case for proceeding against the person against whom the show- cause notices have been issued. Abstinence from interference at the stage of issuance of show-cause notice in order to relegate the parties to the proceedings before the authorities concerned is the normal rule. However, the said

[2023:RJ-JP:16965] (4 of 5) [CW-3821/2021]

rule is not without exceptions. Where a show-cause notice is issued either without jurisdiction or in an abuse of process of law, certainly in that case, the writ court would not hesitate to interfere even at the stage of issuance of show cause-notice. The interference at the show-cause notice stage should be rare and not in a routine manner. Mere assertion by the writ petitioner that notice was without jurisdiction and/or abuse of process of law would not suffice. It should be prima facie established to be so. Where factual adjudication would be necessary, interference is ruled out." The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Another Versus Kunisetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 Supreme Court Cases 28 held as below:-

13. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge-sheet or show- cause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh (1996) 1 SCC 327, Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse, Ulagappa v. Divisional Commr., Mysore 2001 (10) SCC 639, State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma # 1987) 2 SCC 179, etc.

14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge- sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of any one. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance."

The petitioner has an opportunity to submit the explanation

to the concerned Authority who shall consider the case and decide

the rights. Counsel for the petitioner informed this Court that in

[2023:RJ-JP:16965] (5 of 5) [CW-3821/2021]

pursuance to the show cause notice dated 04.02.2021, he has

already submitted the detailed representation which has been

rejected by respondents vide order dated 12.07.2021.

In view of the settled law that the present writ petition is not

maintainable for challenging the show cause notice as the same is

pre-mature and further after submitting the explanation by the

petitioner, the respondents have rejected the representation vide

order dated 12.07.2021. Now the petitioner has remedy to