Writ challenging a show-cause notice is premature as petitioners must exhaust administrative remedies before the appropriate forum.

The petitioners, involved in handmade brickmaking, challenged notices dated 06.05.2026 issued by the Assistant Engineer, TANGEDCO, which sought to disconnect their electricity supply

The disconnection was initiated following an inspection by revenue officials (Tahsildar), acting on directions from the National Green Tribunal (NGT), which found the brick kilns to be unauthorized and operating without necessary permissions

The petitioners argued that the action was taken without affording them a proper opportunity to be heard and without providing the underlying inspection reports or proceedings dated 11.02.2026

During the hearing, the requested documents were supplied to the petitioners in open court

Whether the impugned notices for electricity disconnection were legally sustainable as final orders or were merely show cause notices

Whether the petitioners were entitled to submit objections and seek relief regarding the alleged unauthorized brick kiln activities before the National Green Tribunal

The court applied principles of natural justice, specifically the right to be heard (audi alteram partem), by treating the impugned notices as show cause notices rather than final orders

It identified that regulatory oversight of brick kilns falls under environmental statutes as monitored by the National Green Tribunal (NGT)

Furthermore, the court acknowledged the requirement for valid permissions/clearances from authorities, such as the Assistant Director of Mining, to carry out brick kiln activities

The court observed that the impugned notices were not final orders of disconnection but were "only a show cause notice"

This interpretation allowed the court to bridge the procedural gap alleged by the petitioners regarding the lack of opportunity. Since the primary grievance—the non-supply of the proceedings dated 11.02.2026—was resolved by providing the documents in court, the petitioners were now in a position to respond

The court noted that the enforcement actions were rooted in directives from the NGT; therefore, any substantive challenge to the findings of "unauthorized activity" or "adverse orders" must be addressed within the jurisdiction of the NGT rather than through a Writ of Certiorari at this stage

The court held that the petitioners must approach the National Green Tribunal for any further relief against adverse environmental findings. No costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed