Interference with a Show-Cause Notice is Unwarranted if the Petitioner has an Opportunity to File a Reply.

The petitioner, Kalyan Singh Kushwah, challenged a show-cause notice dated 30.05.2026 issued by respondent Nos. 3 and 4, which proposed action against his kiosk (gumti).

The petitioner contended the notice was issued without application of mind and that he holds lawful title and possession of the land.

He claimed to have submitted a representation to the Collector, Sheopur, on 02.06.2026, supported by documents including a Land Ownership Rights Certificate under the Mukhyamantri Awasiya Bhu-Adhikar Yojana, SVAMITVA Scheme records, and building permission from the Gram Panchayat.

Despite this, no decision was taken, leading the petitioner to approach the High Court seeking a restraint on the removal of his kiosk.

1. Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable against a mere show-cause notice when no final adverse order has been passed

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to interim protection against coercive action pending the consideration of his representation by the competent authority

Interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against a mere show-cause notice is ordinarily not warranted unless exceptional circumstances are established.

Principles of natural justice require that a person be afforded a fair opportunity to present factual and legal objections before an administrative authority takes coercive action.

The Court observed that the impugned communication was only a show-cause notice and the proceedings were at a preliminary stage.

The Court reasoned that the petitioner has an effective opportunity to place all supporting documents regarding title and possession before the competent authority rather than the High Court.

The Court balanced the State's power to remove encroachments with the petitioner’s right to a fair hearing, noting that if the petitioner's explanation is found satisfactory, the proceedings must be dropped.

However, if the occupation is found to be unauthorized after due consideration, the State retains the power to proceed in accordance with law.

The Court directed the competent authority to pass a reasoned and speaking order after providing an opportunity for a hearing, and ordered that no coercive action be taken against the petitioner until the 15-day period for filing the reply expires and until a final decision is taken by the authority.