KISHORE KUMAR SAHU vs CHHATTISGARH STATE POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY (C. S P. D. C. L.) LIMITED

1

CGHC010430982026 2026:CGHC:46238
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 5511 of 2026
1 - Kishore Kumar Sahu S/o Late Bhimsen Sahu Aged About 49 Years R/o-
Ward No-15, Mahalpara, Saraipali District - Mahasamund (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company (C. S P. D. C. L.) Limited
Through Its Managing Director Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Executive Engineer (O And M) Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution
Company Saraipali Division Saraipali District - Mahasamund (C.G.)
3 - Junior Engineer Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Saraipali
Division Saraipali District - Mahasamund (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner : Mr. Krishna Tandon, Advocate appears on behalf
of Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate appears
through VC and Mr. Manish Chandrakar, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board
02/11/2026
1. The petitioner, in this Writ Petition, has prayed for the following reliefs:-
“10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to call for the records of the case from the
respondents.

2
10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to set-aside/quash the impugned demand notice No.
2796 dated 16/10/2026 issued by the Respondent
No.2. (Annexure P-1)
10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to set-aside/quash the letter dated 01/10/2026
issued by the Respondent No. 2 (Annexure P-2).
10.4 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to direct the respondents to decide the objection
preferred by the petitioner dated 16/10/2026
without depositing 50% of the provisional
assessment bill.
10.5 To kindly make any other order that may be
deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances
of the case including awarding of the costs to the
petitioner.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned demand
notice as well as the consequential proceedings initiated by the
respondents.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that in the event
any final order is passed against the petitioner, the petitioner would have
an appropriate remedy of appeal. He further submits that the petitioner
would be afforded due opportunity of hearing, including an opportunity
to submit relevant documents and adduce evidence, before any final
order is passed. He, therefore, submits that no interference is warranted
at this stage.
4. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties and upon perusal of the record, particularly the demand notice

3
dated 16.10.2026, whereby the petitioner has been called upon to deposit
an amount of Rs.9,08,630/-, failing which appropriate proceedings would
be initiated in accordance with law, this Court finds that at this stage,
only a demand notice has been issued and no final order has been passed
against the petitioner. In view of the categorical stand taken by the
respondent authorities that further proceedings would be initiated in
accordance with law, this Court is of the view that no interference is
warranted at this stage. Against a show-cause notice/notice, a writ
petition would not be maintainable. If any notice has been issued, the
concerned party can very well file a reply to the notice and apprise the
concerned authority that the notice is not in accordance with law. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Jharkhand and Others
v. Rukma Kesh Mishra , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 676, has held in para 11
as under:
“ 11. A coordinate bench of this Court in Union of
India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCC
28 has held that ordinarily no writ lies against a
show cause notice or charge-sheet. The reason is
that a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet
does not give rise to any cause of action, because
it does not amount to an adverse order affecting
the rights of any party unless the same has been
issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so
(emphasis supplied). 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. No doubt, in some very rare and
exceptional cases the High Court can quash a
show cause notice or charge-sheet if it is found to
be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other
reason it is wholly illegal (emphasis supplied).

4
However, ordinarily the High Court should not
interfere in such a matter.”
5. Similarly, in the matter of J. Sri Nisha v. Special Director, Adjudicating
Authority, Directorate of Enforcement and another , (2026) 8 SCC 750,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in paragraphs 32 and 33 as under:
“ 32. This Court has consistently held that
although ordinarily a writ petition against an SCN
may not be entertained, however, the said
proposition is not an inviolable rule. Interference
at the stage of SCN is permissible in exceptional
circumstances, such as where the notice suffers
from patent lack of jurisdiction, reflects non-
application of mind, is issued with a pre-
determined or premeditated approach, amounts to
an abuse of the process of law, or results in a
violation of the principles of natural justice. In
such situations, the High Court would be justified
in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution to prevent manifest injustice.
33. In this context, we may gainfully refer to the
following observations from Union of India v.
VICCO Laboratories [Union of India v. VICCO
Laboratories, (2007) 13 SCC 270] : (SCC p. 283,
para 31)
“31. Normally, the writ court should not
interfere at the stage of issuance of show-cause
notice by the authorities. In such a case, the
parties get ample opportunity to put forth their
contentions before the authorities concerned and
to satisfy the authorities concerned about the

5
absence of case for proceeding against the person
against whom the show-cause notices have been
issued. Abstinence from interference at the stage
of issuance of show-cause notice in order to
relegate the parties to the proceedings before the
authorities concerned is the normal rule.
However, the said rule is not without exceptions.
Where a show-cause notice is issued either
without jurisdiction or in an abuse of process of
law, certainly in that case, the writ court would
not hesitate to interfere even at the stage of
issuance of show-cause notice. The interference at
the show-cause notice stage should be rare and
not in a routine manner. Mere assertion by the
writ petitioner that notice was without jurisdiction
and/or abuse of process of law would not suffice.
It should be prima facie established to be so.
Where factual adjudication would be necessary,
interference is ruled out. (emphasis supplied)”
6. In light of the aforesaid settled position of law, a challenge to a notice,
without any order affecting the rights of the party, is not amenable to writ
jurisdiction.
7. The petitioner is at liberty to submit an appropriate reply/objection to the
demand notice and participate in the proceedings, which shall be
conducted in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Priyanka Judge