S. Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) Challenging show -cause notice dated 24.8.2015 issued by the Territory Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited -respondent No. 3, the present writ petition has been filed. The petitioner claims that on 13.8.2011, a Letter of Intent was issued for establishing a patrol pump at Barsot and since then, the petitioner is carrying business. On 24.8.2015, a notice was issued to the petitioner to furnish explanation to the allegations made in the notice.
(2.) Mr. Raj Nandan Sahay, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner states that on applications dated 14.9.2010 and 25.9.2010 filed by one Shri Motilal Choudhary, the impugned show -cause notice dated 24.8.2015 has been issued. Referring to order dated 4.2.2013 in W.P. (PIL) No. 3483 of 2012, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that after dismissal of the writ petition, the complaint dated 14.9.2010 and 25.9.2010 filed by the said Shri Motilal Choudhary could not have been entertained by the respondent -BPCL. It is submitted that the allegations in show -cause notice dated 24.8.2015 are patently erroneous inasmuch as, the lease -deed was executed by Balgovind Prasad, Loki Prasad, Rajdeo Prasad and Jagdish Prasad in favour of respondent -BPCL and the genealogical table of late Nando Mahto would disclose that the Balgovind Prasad and late Ram Singhasan Prasad were brothers. Before award of dealership, field verification was done and details of land etc. were verified. It is submitted that on an erroneous assumption a show -cause notice dated 24.8.2015 has been issued and therefore, it requires interference by this Court.
(3.) Normally, against a show -cause notice writ petition is not maintainable unless, it is wholly without jurisdiction or patently illegal. The Territory Manager (Retail), BPCL, Ranchi has jurisdiction to issue show -cause notice, cannot be denied. A show -cause issued on an erroneous assumption or on misappreciation of the facts, cannot render the show -cause notice dated 24.8.2015, illegal. The explanation offered by the petitioner in the present proceeding can be pleaded before the respondent -authority. The dismissal of order dated 4.2.2013 discloses that the writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the necessary party was not impleaded in the writ petition. It may be open to the petitioner to plead mala fide of Sri Motilal Choudhary before the respondent -authority and challenge the maintainability of the complaint vide letters dated 14.9.2010 and 25.9.2010. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Union of India and Another v/s. Kunisetty Satyanarayana" reported in : (2006)12 SCC 28 [: 2007(1) JLJR (SC)113], has held as under: - - "13. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge -sheet or show -cause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v/s. Ramesh Kumar Singh, Special Director v/s. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse, Ulagappa v/s. Divisional Commr., Mysore, State of U.P. v/s. Brahm Dutt Sharma, etc. 14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show -cause notice or charge -sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge -sheet or show -cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show -cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well -settled that a writ petition lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show -cause notice or charge -sheet does not infringe the right of anyone. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance. 15. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show -cause notice or charge -sheet. 16. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a charge -sheet or show -cause notice if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter.";