IMRAN MASOOD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been made for quashing the show cause notice dated 13. 9. 2007 and the consequential order dated 15. 9. 2007. Therefore, prima facie, we are of the view that the writ petition has been made challenging the show cause notice which has been issued by the State authorities in accordance with the appropriate law. It is well settled by now that in case only issuance of show cause notice is challenged, Court should not interfere generally because the petitioner has an ample opportunity to file his reply and explain his case before the State authority by whom the show cause notice has been issued.

(2.) IN the instant case, Sri Ravi Kant and Sri S. M. A. Qazmi, learned Senior Counsels duly assisted by Sri Mukhtar Alam, learned Counsel appeared in support of the writ petition and contended before the Court that the show cause notice is mala fide in nature and without jurisdiction, therefore, show cause notice can be challenged. The action on the part of the authority is vindictive in nature.

(3.) WE have gone through the documents annexed in the writ petition as well as in the supplementary affidavits and found that the levelling of charges on the part of the State authorities cannot be held to be mala fide. There is a reason for saying so. Various charges were levelled against the petitioner when the State authority made an enquiry. The State authority has found that some of the charges cannot be levelled against the petitioner since those are not backed by any evidence. Thereafter only for remaining charges, show cause notice had been issued on 13. 9. 2007. Had it been the case of mala fide, all other charges could have been levelled against the petitioner. There was no occasion for exonerating the petitioner from such other charges.