Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashment of Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue)’s show cause notice to stop construction and bring necessary clearance/permission documents for inspection, a single-judge bench of G.S. Ahluwalia, J., held that writ cannot be issued for restraining the respondent authorities from taking coercive actions against petitioner as the direction to stop construction is not a final order because the same is based on an interim measure pending further inquiry. While acknowledging the petitioner did not receive a copy of the enquiry report which was a basis for the show-cause notice, the Court disposed of the petition with the specific observations regarding enquiry report and spot inspection.
In the instant matter, the petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the quashment of the show cause notice dated 18-06-2024 issued by the respondent, SDO (Revenue), Baihar, District Balaghat, issuance of Writ Mandamus for restraining the authorities from taking coercive actions against petitioner and restraining the authorities from unnecessarily harassing the petitioner without any authority of law. The impugned notice ordered the petitioner to stop construction immediately and to appear before the concerning officer with the necessary documents for clearances/permissions on 19-06-2024.
The petitioner claimed that the notice was issued to gain cheap popularity and that no construction had been initiated on the land. The petitioner argued that the enquiry report, which was the basis for the show cause notice, had not been provided. The petitioner further claimed that the show cause notice was issued without any basis and was aimed at harassing the petitioner. However, the respondent cited Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCC 28 and argued that writ petitions against show cause notices are not maintainable. The respondents claimed that the notice was issued lawfully, providing the petitioner an opportunity to present his case.
While referencing Kunisetty Satyanarayana (Supra), the Court held that a writ petition against a show cause notice is generally not maintainable. The Court observed that the direction to stop construction was not a final order as it was based on an interim measure pending further inquiry. The Court noted that the petitioner was given an opportunity to present his case and had filed a response claiming no construction was undertaken. The Court further noted that whether petitioner is raising any construction or not, is a disputed question of fact which cannot be decided by this Court.
The Court acknowledged the petitioner’s contention about not receiving the enquiry report and observed that:
-
If the petitioner applies for the enquiry report, it must be supplied within 3 days of the application.
-
If the petitioner requests a spot inspection, it should be conducted by the competent authority, with the date fixed and binding on all parties.
-
If the petitioner/his authorized person fails to participate in the spot inspection, he cannot later claim it was conducted in his absence.
-
The petitioner can file objections to the spot inspection within 3 days from the inspection.
-
The SDO (Revenue) must decide the show-cause notice after hearing the petitioner within 15 days from the spot inspection report filing.
The Court asserted that if the petitioner does not apply for the enquiry report or spot inspection within 15 days, the above-mentioned observations will lose effect. The Court emphasised that it did not address the merits of the allegations or the petitioner’s defense, leaving the proceedings to be decided based on evidence. The Court further opined that if a final order has already been passed, the petitioner may prefer an appeal, and the appellate authority should resolve the factual dispute as necessary. The Court disposed of the present petition with the above-mentioned observations.
[Randeep Hooda v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine MP 4884, Decided on 18-07-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Shri Siddharth Sharma, Counsel for the Petitioner
Shri Mohan Sausarkar, Govt. Advocate, Counsel for the Respondents/State
Buy Constitution of India HERE
