This Court held that the petition challenging a Showcause-Notice is premature as the petitioner must first reply to the notice and attend a hearing before any order is passed.
No; the petition was rejected as it was premature. The petitioner must reply to the Showcause-Notice.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Criminal Writ Petition No. 77 of 2016 [Abdul Jakir Abdul Bashir Vs. State of Mah. & two others]
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.
Mr. Parag Bezalwar, Adv., for the petitioner. Mr. M.K. Pathan, APP for respondents.
CORAM : B. R. GAVAI AND V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : 07th June, 2016
Heard.
The present petition is premature, inasmuch as what is challenged before this Court is only the Showcause-Notice. Undisputedly, the authority, which has issued the Show-cause-Notice, will have to hear the petitioner before passing orders. It is also to be noted that there is also an appeal against the order, if any, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer.
In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain the petition at this stage. The petitioner
2
should reply to the Show-cause-Notice, which would be considered by the authority.
Criminal Writ Petition No. 77 of 2016 is rejected with the above observations.
Judge Judge
|hedau|
1 issue framed by the court
Whether this Court should entertain a writ petition challenging an impugned Showcause-Notice at a stage when no order has been passed yet.
Abdul Jakir Abdul Bashir
State of Mah.
two others
B. R. Gavai
V. M. Deshpande
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
