High Court declines interference with show cause notice, directs hearing before decision

The Bombay High Court declined to interfere with a show cause notice issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing Respondent No.4 to provide a hearing to the petitioners before passing a decision. The court stayed the implementation of any adverse order for two weeks and extended the bank guarantee deadline. The court disposed of the writ petition without expressing any opinion on the merits, leaving all contentions open and making no order as to costs.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to show cause notice dated 5th July, 2018 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis:
The petitioners challenged a show cause notice dated 5th July, 2018, issued by Respondent No.2, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court had previously directed the petitioners to furnish a bank guarantee of minimum Rs. 6 crores, which was 50% of the liability, and keep it active until 29th May, 2019. The petitioners independently contested the show cause notice in this petition.

Analysis:
During the proceedings, the counsel for Respondent No.4 stated that the show cause notice dated 5th July, 2018 could be disposed of after giving a hearing to the petitioners in person or through their authorized representative. The court accepted this statement and decided not to interfere with the impugned show cause notice. Respondent No.4 was directed to pass a speaking order after hearing the petitioners or their representative by 29th May, 2019. If an adverse order was issued, its implementation was stayed for two weeks from the date of communication, and the bank guarantee was to be extended until 30th June, 2019.

Analysis:
The Senior Counsel for the petitioners argued that the show cause notice was without jurisdiction and contended that all issues raised in the notice had been addressed in a previous judgment dated 5th April, 2019. However, the counsel for the respondents did not agree with this argument. Despite the contentions raised by both parties, the court disposed of the writ petition on the terms mentioned, keeping all contentions of the parties open and making no order as to costs. The court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petition.

---