Writ interference with show-cause notice is limited where the notice is issued by competent authority and no jurisdictional defect exists.

A writ court should not interfere with a show-cause notice under Article 226 unless the notice is a nullity or has been issued without jurisdiction. Here, the impugned communication was treated as a valid show-cause notice requiring appearance and reply, and it was issued by the competent authority under Section 182(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code. Because no jurisdictional defect was shown and the petitioner had an opportunity to respond before the authority, interference was declined and the challenge to the notice was held not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ court should interfere with a show-cause notice issued by the competent authority, and whether the notice was liable to be quashed for want of jurisdiction.

Analysis: The impugned communication was treated as a show-cause notice requiring the petitioner to appear and submit a reply. The notice was found to have been issued by the competent authority under Section 182(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code. Interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against a show-cause notice is warranted only where the notice is shown to be a nullity or issued without jurisdiction. As no such jurisdictional defect was found, and the petitioner was given an opportunity to respond before the authority, interference was declined.

Conclusion: The challenge to the show-cause notice was not maintainable and the writ court was not required to interfere.

---