Chhattisgarh HC Declines To Intervene In ₹9.08-Lakh Power Demand Notice, Says Man Can Object Before Final Order

In brief

The question

Whether a writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable to challenge the demand notice when no final order affecting the petitioner’s rights had been passed.

The court held

The Court held that the challenge to the notice was not amenable to writ jurisdiction at this stage and dismissed the petition.

It also directed

It left the petitioner at liberty to submit a reply or objection and participate in the proceedings, which the respondents were directed to conduct in accordance with law after affording him a proper opportunity of hearing.

01Facts

The petitioner challenged a demand notice dated 16 October 2026 requiring him to deposit ₹9,08,630, as well as a letter dated 1 October 2026.

¶ 1 · p. 1

He sought, among other reliefs, quashing of those communications and a direction that his objection be decided without requiring a 50% deposit of the provisional assessment bill

¶ 1 · p. 1

The respondents submitted that no final order had been passed, that the petitioner would receive an opportunity to be heard and present evidence, and that an appeal would be available if a final order were made against him.

¶ 3 · p. 2

02Issues

i.Whether a writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable to challenge the demand notice when no final order affecting the petitioner’s rights had been passed.

¶ 4, 6 · p. 2, 5

ii.Whether the Court should interfere with the notice at this stage, including on the basis of the petitioner’s challenge to the demand and related proceedings.

¶ 2, 4 · pp. 2–3

03Law Applied

The Court applied the settled principle that a writ petition ordinarily does not lie against a show-cause notice or notice because it does not, by itself, constitute an adverse order affecting a party’s rights.

¶ 4 · pp. 3–4

The High Court may exceptionally intervene at the notice stage where, for example, the notice is without jurisdiction, wholly illegal, issued with a predetermined approach, constitutes an abuse of process, or violates natural justice; such grounds must be prima facie established, and interference is generally inappropriate where factual adjudication is required.

¶ 4 · pp. 3–4

The Court relied on State of Jharkhand v. Rukma Kesh Mishra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 676, quoting Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCC 28, and on J. Sri Nisha v. Special Director, Adjudicating Authority, Directorate of Enforcement, (2026) 8 SCC 750, which referred to Union of India v. VICCO Laboratories, (2007) 13 SCC 270.

¶ 4 · pp. 3–4 · ¶ 5 · pp. 4–5

04Reasoning

The Court found that the communication under challenge was a demand notice and that no final order had been made against the petitioner.

¶ 3–4 · pp. 2–3

The respondents had stated that further proceedings would be conducted in accordance with law and that the petitioner would have an opportunity to be heard and submit relevant material.

¶ 3–4 · pp. 2–3

Applying the rule against routine interference at the notice stage, the Court concluded that no basis for exceptional intervention had been established.

¶ 4–7 · pp. 3–5

The petitioner could raise his objections before the authority, which could consider whether the notice was lawful; the Court therefore declined to determine the merits of the demand at this stage.

¶ 4–7 · pp. 3–5