Prakash Krishna, J. - (1.) Challenging the show cause notice dated 16-2-2010 issued under Section 198(4) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, the present writ petition has been filed. It was rightly pointed out by Sri Babu Lal Ram, learned Standing Counsel that the present petition which is directed against a show cause notice, is not maintainable coupled with the fact that the petitioner has already filed its reply before the authority concerned.
(2.) At this stage, Sri Triveni Shanker, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a direction be issued to the authority concerned to decide certain preliminary issues first.
(3.) I am afraid that no such direction can be issued. It is desirable in the interest of the parties that all the issues between the parties should be decided finally and there should not be any piece meal decision as held by the Apex Court in the case of D.P. Maheshwari v. Delhi Administration and others (1983) 4 SCC 293. The relevant portion is extracted below:- "There was a time when it was thought prudent and wise policy to decide preliminary issues first. But the time appears to have arrived for a reversal of that policy. We think it is better that tribunals, particularly those entrusted with the task of adjudicating labour disputes where delay may lead to misery and jeopardise industrial peace, should decide all issues in dispute at the same time without trying some of them as preliminary issues. Nor should High courts in the exercise of their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution stop proceedings before a tribunal so that a preliminary issue may be decided by them. Neither the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution nor the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 may be allowed to be exploited by those who can well afford to wait to the detriment of those who can ill afford to wait by dragging the latter from court to court for adjudication of peripheral issues, avoiding decision on issues more vital to them. Article 226 and Article 136 are not meant to be used to break the resistance of workmen in this fashion. Tribunals and courts who are requested to decide preliminary questions must therefore ask themselves whether such threshold part-adjudication is really necessary and whether it will not lead to other woeful consequence. After all tribunals like industrial tribunals are constituted to decide expeditiously special kinds of disputes and their jurisdiction to so decide is not to be stifled by all manner of preliminary objections and journeyings up and down. It is also worthwhile remembering that the nature of the jurisdiction under Article 226 is supervisory and not appellate while that under Article 136 is primarily supervisory but the court may exercise all necessary appellate powers to do substantial justice. In the exercise of such jurisdiction neither the High Court nor this Court is required to be too astute to interfere with the exercise of jurisdiction by special tribunals at interlocutory stages and on preliminary issues.";