Premature writ challenge and show cause notice scrutiny: tentative governmental steps must usually run to a final decision.

A writ challenge to an inter-departmental communication was premature because the communication was only a tentative step in an ongoing governmental process and did not finally determine rights or obligations. A show cause notice issued during a status quo order was not to be ignored merely on that basis, because it only initiated hearing on a proposed action and should ordinarily be answered before any final decision. The notice was also not shown to be without jurisdiction, as the competent authority could reconsider earlier recommendations and decide whether part of the lease area should be resumed. The final order was set aside and the matter was remitted for a reasoned decision after reply.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was premature as it challenged only an inter-departmental communication that had not finally determined the parties' rights or obligations; (ii) Whether the High Court could ignore the show cause notice merely because it had been issued during subsistence of the status quo order; (iii) Whether the show cause notice was without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was premature as it challenged only an inter-departmental communication that had not finally determined the parties' rights or obligations.

Analysis: The communication dated 19 September 2006 was only part of an ongoing governmental process concerning assessment of the lease area and the requirement of the respondent's existing plant. It followed earlier instructions to assess the requirement and to consider resumption of excess area, and it did not itself amount to a final decision on resumption or reduction of the lease area. Since no final governmental order had been taken, the challenge was directed against a tentative step in the decision-making process rather than a conclusive determination.

Conclusion: The writ petition was premature and ought not to have been entertained against the communication.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court could ignore the show cause notice merely because it had been issued during subsistence of the status quo order.

Analysis: A show cause notice did not alter the status quo by itself; it only initiated a hearing on a proposed action. Even if its issue was debatable in the light of the interim order, the High Court could not treat the notice as non est when no substantive challenge to its validity had been laid. The proper course was to require a response to the notice and allow the authority to pass a final order in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in ignoring the show cause notice on that ground.

Issue (iii): Whether the show cause notice was without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.

Analysis: The notice was not shown to be without jurisdiction. The State Government was competent, in an appropriate case, to reconsider or modify earlier recommendations and to assess whether the lease area should be resumed in part. Since the matter had not yet been finally examined by the Government, the merits of the proposed action were left open to be considered by the competent authority after receiving the respondent's reply. A final reasoned order was required before any further challenge.

Conclusion: The show cause notice was not quashable on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the High Court's order was set aside, and the respondent was directed to respond to the show cause notice so that the Government could decide the matter by a reasoned order before any further proceedings were taken.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ petition is premature when it challenges only a tentative or inter-departmental step that does not finally determine rights, and a show cause notice should ordinarily be allowed to run its course unless it is shown to be without jurisdiction.

---