2025 (12) TMI 101 - HC - Service Tax

Writ appeal dismissed; show-cause under Section 182(2) MP Land Revenue Code upheld, Article 226 interference declined

HC dismissed the writ appeal, upholding the Single Judge's refusal to entertain the writ petition directed against a show-cause notice issued under ... Maintainability of petition - Petition disposed off without entertaining the same on merit observing that the petitioner may appear before the Collector and file reply so that proper and effective adjudication in the matter can be made - appellant argued that the order passed by the authority is mere an eyewash and infact the authority has already taken a decision that the land belongs to the Government - HELD THAT:- The impugned letter is nothing but a show-cause notice and therefore, the petitioner has been directed to appear before the authority. Therefore, learned Single Judge has rightly declined to interfere with the impugned letter and granted liberty to the petitioner to file a reply which has been directed to be considered by the competent authority. The law with regard to maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against a show-cause notice is no longer res integra. In the case of Special Director and another Vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse [2004 (1) TMI 378 - SUPREME COURT], it has been held that against a show cause notice, the High Court can interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the Court is satisfied of the nullity of show-cause notice for want of jurisdiction of the authority concerned to investigate the facts. In the present case, it is found that said notice has been issued under section 182(2) of the M.P.L and Revenue Code by the competent authority, therefore in the light of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case, the learned Single Judge has rightly declined to entertain the petition. It is directed that the authority shall fix a date after 7 days from today and the petitioner shall be given liberty to file reply to the said notice and competent authority shall pass a reasoned and speaking order after considering reply of the petitioner in accordance with law. The Writ Appeal is disposed off. An intra-court writ appeal challenged the dismissal of a writ petition against a notice dated 24.10.2025 issued by the Collector, Indore under Section 182(2) of the M.P. Land and Revenue Code. The appellant contended that the notice was a mere formality as the authority had already decided the land belonged to the Government, and that the notice did not specify the legal provision invoked. The Court held that the impugned communication was 'nothing but a show-cause notice' and not an adjudicatory order, and that the petitioner had been directed only to appear and respond. Relying on Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse, (2004) 3 SCC 440, it reiterated that interference under Article 226 against a show-cause notice is permissible only when it is a nullity for want of jurisdiction. As the notice was issued by a competent authority, the writ was not maintainable. The appeal was disposed of with directions to afford the petitioner time and opportunity to file a reply and for a reasoned, speaking order thereafter.