Premeditated show cause notices functioning as final orders without a hearing violate principles of natural justice.

The Petitioner was the Manager of Prathamik Krishi Sakh Sahkari Sanstha, responsible for procuring food-grains from farmers under State guidelines

His duties involved weighing grains into 50kg bags and handing them over to a transporting agency, at which point his responsibility allegedly ceased

Upon delivery to the warehouse, shortages were discovered in the quantities of gram, masur, and mustard

Consequently, the Deputy Commissioner, Co-operative, issued a notice dated August 25, 2018, directing the Petitioner to deposit a specific sum of money to cover the shortage

The Petitioner challenged this notice through a writ petition, arguing it was a final order issued in the guise of a notice without any prior hearing or adherence to natural justice

1. Whether the impugned show cause notices were actually premeditated orders issued in violation of the principles of natural justice.

2. Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite an alternative remedy (arbitration clause) in the agreement between the society and the State Civil Supplies Corporation.

The court applied the principle that writ jurisdiction can be exercised against a show cause notice if it is found to be "premeditated" or is effectively an order in itself rather than a preliminary notice

It relied on the precedent established in Harcharan Rajpali Vs. Collector, Tikamgarh and others (2009 (1) MPLJ 226), which underscores the necessity of affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing before passing orders with civil consequences

The court further upheld the fundamental principles of natural justice, which require an inquiry and a fair hearing before any adjudication of liability is made

The Court examined the language of the impugned notices and observed that they did not call upon the petitioners to "show cause" why action should not be taken; instead, they explicitly stated that a certain amount was due and commanded immediate deposit

This indicated that the authorities had already performed an adjudication and determined the petitioners' liability without any procedural fairness

The Court reasoned that because the "notices" were premeditated and final in nature, judicial interference was warranted despite the usual restraint exercised against interlocutory notices

Furthermore, the Court implicitly rejected the respondents' argument regarding alternative remedies by finding that a total lack of opportunity of hearing rendered the administrative action impermissible

It held that while the State has the right to recover losses, it must do so through a lawful process

The Court remitted the matter back to the authorities with directions to conduct a fresh inquiry, issue proper show cause notices, and afford the petitioners a reasonable opportunity of hearing before passing any fresh orders in accordance with the law