Boomiraj.V vs. The Managing Director

Facts

The petitioner, V.Boomiraj, filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated June 24, 2020, issued by the District Manager of Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (TASMAC), Dindigul District. The notice sought an explanation as to why a penalty of 50% with 24% interest and GST should not be imposed for a shortfall in stock. The petitioner sought quashing of this notice. The respondents are various officials of TASMAC. The writ petition was taken up for final disposal at the admission stage with the consent of both parties.

Held

The Court held that the scope of interference with a show cause notice under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited. The grounds raised by the petitioner in the writ petition touched upon factual aspects of the averments in the show cause notice. The Court found that such factual aspects cannot be considered in a writ petition. The petitioner was advised that they are at liberty to raise all these factual objections in their reply to the show cause notice. Consequently, the Court found that the writ petition itself could not be sustained and was dismissed. The petitioner was granted liberty to file fresh objections to the show cause notice within fifteen days from the receipt of the order, provided no final orders had been passed by the respondents pursuant to the show cause notice.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can interfere with a show cause notice on grounds that touch upon factual aspects. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner's grounds for challenging the show cause notice involved factual averments. The judgment does not explicitly record the petitioner's detailed arguments beyond the nature of the grounds raised. Respondents' Argument: The respondents, through their Standing Counsel, argued that the scope of interference with a show cause notice under Article 226 is very limited and that factual aspects cannot be considered by the High Court in a writ petition. The judgment does not record any specific statutory provisions or precedents relied upon by the respondents.