Joginder Singh vs State of Jharkhand & ors.

Chandrashekhar, J. - Aggrieved by notice dated 13.8.2015 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dhalbhum, the petitioner has approached this Court.

Raising a plea of jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dhalbhum, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that notice dated 13.08.2015 is patently illegal. It is stated that in respect of the property in question, Title Suit No. 167 of 1972 was instituted which was decreed on 25.1.1982. Execution Case No. 51 of 1985 however, stood dismissed on 13.12.2012 for non prosecution. The petitioner has been paying license fee to the Jamshedpur Notified Area Committee. In the aforesaid facts, it is contended that without order of a competent court, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dhalbhum cannot issue notice for eviction of the petitioner.

A perusal of notice dated 13.8.2015 discloses that on a complaint received, the said notice was issued to the petitioner directing him to produce documents relating to the property on which they have constructed shops. Ordinarily, against a show-cause notice writ petition is not maintainable. In "Union of India and Another v. Kunisettey Satyanarayana" (2006) 12 SCC 28, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

"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 proceeding and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well-settled that a writ petition lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of anyone. 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.

Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show-cause notice or charge-sheet.

No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a charge-sheet or show-cause notice if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter."

The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to representation submitted to the Sub-Divisional Officer and submits that xerox copies of the orders passed by the competent court were produced before the authority however, ignoring the same the Sub-Divisional Officer has issued notice dated 13.08.2015.

It is not in dispute that the father of the petitioner was defendant in Title Suit No. 167 of 1972 and suit has been decreed against them. Though, the direction to produce documents relating to land within 24 hours cannot be sanctioned in law, considering the lapse of time, I am of the opinion that the petitioner should have first approached the Sub-Divisional Officer instead of rushing to this Court. It remains open to the petitioner to produce orders passed in Title Suit No. 167 of 1972 and Execution Case No. 51 of 1985 and other documents, within next four weeks. Needless to say, the authority concerned shall keep in mind, the orders passed and the proceeding initiated in the civil court.

The writ petition stands disposed of, with the aforesaid liberty to the petitioner.