A petitioner must first respond to a show-cause notice before invoking writ jurisdiction.

The petitioner challenged a notice dated 15 January 2026 issued by the Tehsildar, Raigarh, concerning alleged interference with his possession and the possible demolition of his structure.

He contended that the land in question was not covered by an earlier order dated 22 May 2018 and, therefore, the notice was unlawfully issued.

The State and the Municipal Corporation opposed direct interference by the High Court, submitting that the petitioner should first file a reply before the competent authority and raise all factual and legal objections there.

The Court considered the pleadings and submissions without examining the merits of the dispute.

Whether the petitioner should be permitted to directly invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court against the notice dated 15 January 2026, or should first avail the opportunity to file objections before the concerned Tehsildar.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to raise before the competent authority the contention that the land in question was not covered by the order dated 22 May 2018.

Whether coercive action should be restrained pending consideration of the petitioner’s objections to the notice.

The Court applied the principle that a person ordinarily must first respond to a statutory or administrative notice before invoking writ jurisdiction, particularly where the competent authority has not yet adjudicated the objections and no final adverse order has been passed.

The Court also applied the principles of procedural fairness and natural justice by directing the authority to consider the petitioner’s detailed reply, relevant documents, and submissions after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other concerned parties.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the order; the directions were based on the availability of an effective opportunity before the competent authority and the requirement of a reasoned decision.

Since the impugned communication was only a notice and the petitioner had not yet placed his objections before the Tehsildar, the Court declined to adjudicate the merits of the claim regarding the applicability of the order dated 22 May 2018.

Instead, it directed the petitioner to submit a detailed reply within 10 days, expressly permitting him to raise all available objections, including that the disputed land was outside the scope of the 2018 order.

To preserve the effectiveness of that remedy, the Court restrained coercive steps for 10 days, subject to the condition that the notice had not already been executed or complied with.

The competent authority was then required to consider the reply and documents, hear all concerned parties, and issue a reasoned order within 45 days.

The petition was disposed of with directions that the petitioner file his reply before the Tehsildar within 10 days; the Tehsildar thereafter consider the objections and documents, afford hearing to the petitioner and other affected parties, and pass an appropriate reasoned order within 45 days.

No coercive steps pursuant to the notice were to be taken for 10 days, provided the notice had not already been executed.