GABHANA OIL COMPANY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUDHIR Agarwal, J. The petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution assailing show cause notice dated 31. 1. 2008, Annexure-9 to the writ petition issued by Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

(2.) THE facts in brief, giving rise to the present petition, are as under:

(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is no doubt true that normally when a show cause notice is issued, one is not supposed to be permitted to rush to this Court invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution instead of submitting his reply to the said show cause notice and waiting for the appropriate order to be passed by the authority concerned. However, the aforesaid principle cannot be said to be a total bar against entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but it is a self restraint imposed by the High Courts for not entertaining the matters, which have not attained finality and are still in process of investigation/enquiry. A show cause notice by itself may not constitute to be an action adverse to the interest of the person concerned to whom it is issued and therefore, this Court, normally prefer not to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and instead require the person concerned to reply the notice and await final decision. However, where it is found that a show cause notice has been issued in a most rack less and negligent manner, showing total non-application of mind and causing serious prejudice to the person concerned as the case in hand, where the petitioner1 business is made standstill by stopping supply of kerosene oil to the petitioner, the Court is not prevented from looking into the legality and genuineness of the notice and to find out whether there is even a prima facie case made out by the respondents concerned for issuing such notice. If this Court finds that there is some matter which prima facie shows involvement of the person concerned and the matter requires investigation justifying show cause notice, no further enquiry would be made and this Court would relegate the parties to await final decision in the matter, but if it is found that a show cause notice has been issued on a mere drop of the hat without showing any iota of culpability of the person concerned and in fact nothing has been found even prima facie against the person concerned, this Court would be failing in its constitutional obligation of protecting such a person from avoidable harassment and violation of his legal and constitutional rights in the hands of the respondents, if it still declines to interfere only on the ground that the order impugned is a show cause notice.