1 S. No. 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) 530/2025 CM(1311/2025) ABDUL RASHID THOKER …Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Tariq M. Shah, Advocate. Vs. JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH FINANCIAL CORPORATION ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr. AAG for caveator. CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE O R D E R (ORAL) 17.03.2025 1. In the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, impugned is a show cause notice bearing No.JKLFC/DOA/ECP/2025- 290 dated 14.01.2025 issued under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. The operative portion of said notice being relevant and significant for the disposal of the instant petition is extracted and reproduced here under: - Now therefore the Corporation is left with no alternative but to proceed against you under the provisions of the SFCs Act 1951. In the above circumstances, you are hereby called upon to explain as to why the action under section 29 of State Financial Corporation Act is not taken against you for realizing the total default in your loan account/s as recovery of loan dues of the Corporation. Therefore, you are once again advised to clear the default as detailed above within a period of fifteen (15) days from the issuance of this notice, failing which the Corporation will be constrained to take legal action against you under Section 29 of SFCs Act for the recovery of the total outstanding balance in your loan account aggregating to Rs.59,14,418.00 as on 31.12.2024. Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act provides as under:- "Whereas any Industrial concern which is under a liability to the Financial Corporation under an agreement makes any default in repayment of any loan or advance or any installment thereof (or in meeting its agreement with the Financial Corporation) or otherwise fails to comply with the terms of its agreement with the Financial Corporation, the Financial Corporation shall have the right to take over the management or possession or both of the industrial concern as well the right to transfer by way of lease or sale and realize the property pledged, mortgaged/hypothecated to the Financial Corporation" 2 As is manifest from above, by virtue of the impugned Show Cause Notice the petitioner herein has been called upon by the respondent Corporation to explain as to why action under Section 29 of the Act be not taken against him for realizing the loan amount. 2. In the aforesaid background moot question to be determined by this Court is, as to whether exercise of writ jurisdiction by this Court in the matter is warranted. Law in regard to exercise of writ extraordinary jurisdiction qua a Show Cause Notice stands settled by the series of judgements passed by the Apex Court including in case titled as “Union of India and Another Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana” reported in 2006 (12) SCC 28 wherein following has been held at paras 13 to 16: - 13. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge-sheet or show-cause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh, Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse, Ulagappa v. Divisional Commr., Mysore, State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma, etc. 14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ petition lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of anyone. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance. 15. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show-cause notice or charge-sheet. 16. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a charge-sheet or show-cause notice if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter. 3 Since the Apex court in the judgement supra has ruled that a writ would lie under Article 226 of the Constitution qua a Show Cause Notice only when some right of the party is infringed and that a mere show cause notice which does not infringe the right of the person to whom it is issued, the exercise of writ jurisdiction being discretionary in nature should not be exercised by quashing the said Show Cause Notice. 3. In view of aforesaid position of law and having regard to the facts of the instant case inasmuch as the impugned Show Cause Notice supra, this Court is of the considered opinion that none of the rights of the petitioner by issuance of said Show Cause Notice has been infringed as the petitioner has been called upon only to explain as to why action be not taken under Section 29 of the Act. 4. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is not inclined to exercise discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution, in the matter. 5. Resultantly, the petition fails and is dismissed. 6. Caveat discharged. (JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE SRINAGAR 17.03.2025 Ishaq